- From: Scott Lawrence <scott@skrb.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:44:40 -0400
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 13:24, Lisa Dusseault wrote: > That could be reasonable for as-yet-undefined patch formats, but I'd > like at least one patch format to work "out-of-the-box" with the PATCH > proposal -- a single generic patch format that doesn't need an > additional specification in order to know how to use it. If that's > gdiff (my current thought), then the spec would have to say what the > server should do when receiving a PATCH request with a gdiff body to an > unmapped URL. Iff you feel that needs to be said, then I think that how to handle non-existent resources is properly part of the MIME type registration of the gdiff format, not part of the description of the PATCH method. -- Scott Lawrence
Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 13:49:13 UTC