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

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

From: Suma Potluri <suma@soe.ucsc.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1322.71.141.248.157.1155683899.squirrel@webmail.soe.ucsc.edu>
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Hi Lisa,

I am glad to hear your take on this issue again.

>
>
> On Aug 15, 2006, at 2:33 PM, edgar@edgarschwarz.de wrote:
>
>> 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 :-)
>
> Can you try to verify its licensing status?  It would be great to
> have an unburdened generally-useful diff algorithm.
>
> There are also two possible XML diff algorithms: Jara Urpalainen's,
> and Adrian Mouat's.  Both have been published as Internet-Drafts in
> the past.
>
>>   Only joking, but can anybody tell me what the problem with gdiff
>> is ?
>
> The gdiff algorithm doesn't have a Content-Type.  To register a
> content-type, I think we'd have to publish an Internet-Draft: see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2004-September/
> 000410.html.   I believe we'd be OK publishing an I-D with just the
> IANA form and a reference to the W3C note, but I haven't gotten
> around to that yet.  Help welcome.
>

I believe that we could include the registration information for the new
MIME types as a separate section in the PATCH I-D itself. But, I'd like to
hear any comments about using the normal-diff as the patch format for text
files. Once we reach a consensus on the patch formats, I could work on
registering the new MIME types and publishing the draft.

> (BTW in hunting down this reference I found the time-range that saw
> lots of discussion on the HTTP WG list on the PATCH stuff: http://
> lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2004AprJun/ and http://
> lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2004JulSep/)
>
> Another candidate is VCDIff, but it's unclear how broadly VCDIff may
> be used. See <http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/ATT-draft-korn-vcdiff>,
> and note it's limited to HTTP1.1.  Does that mean RFC2616 only or
> does it include specs that extend HTTP 1.1 while retaining that
> protocol version header? IANAL.
>
>> - NO APPEND.
>> 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.

Thanks,
-Suma
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 23:18:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:15 GMT