W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re (2): I-D for WebDAV methods - APPEND and PATCH

From: <edgar@edgarschwarz.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:33:59 +0200 (MEST)
Message-Id: <200608152134.k7FLXxVk015360@post.webmailer.de>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Cc: edgar@edgarschwarz.de

Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2006, at 12:05 AM, Suma Potluri wrote:
> > Hi Julian,
> > Thanks for your response. I wasn't aware of the earlier draft on  
> > PATCH by
> > Lisa Dusseault when I submitted this latest draft. I admit that I  
> > should
> > have done a little more research into it before submitting the new  
> > I-D. In
> > any case, I noticed that there hasn't been much activity in this area
> > since the past two years. I would be happy to collaboratively work  
> > with
> > Lisa Dusseault or anyone else that would be interested in these  
> > methods,
> > so that we could get something useful out of this.
> That would be great.  I've been letting the  PATCH document languish  
> waiting for some broader consensus for a resolution to the question  
> of what Content-Type means. That's the essential difference between  
> patch draft -05 and draft -06.  The changes made to 06 were inspired  
> by Jeff Mogul; I find his entity/instance model elegant in its  
> resolution of a few modeling problems, even if it wasn't how HTTP was  
> initially intended to be modeled.  However, Roy Fielding has objected  
> to draft -06 and to Mogul's model and I didn't see a clear consensus  
> which way to go.
After reading the old drafts and also Roys comments:
- I would definitly go with Content-Type to give the diff algorithm.
  Please no additional header :-(
- Find a simple mandatory binary diff which is free of IPR.
  I'm no lawyer, but could it help to use a binary diff I use
  for years now in an esoteric system called Oberon from ETH Zuerich.
  Nobody complained about it in all these years :-)
  Only joking, but can anybody tell me what the problem with gdiff is ?
Perhaps Lisa and Suma could collaborate and provide a new draft.
And if somebody decides to go to another list. Please tell me to subscribe
to it :-)
OTOH I think that PATCH has a special importance in the context of
versioning. So perhaps it could be a good idea to find a rough consensus
here before going to the HTTP jungle.

Cheers, Edgar
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 21:34:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:36 UTC