- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:24:06 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> > Proposal: as both GDIFF (unclear IPR and no MIME type) and VCDIFF > (unclear source license and complexity?) seem to be problematic as > REQUIRED delta format, we may want to sit down and come up with a > really simple delta format and use *that* in the PATCH spec (either > in-line or in a separate document). That sure sounds reasonable; are you up for that? I'm not given my other responsibilities right now. Does anybody know if diff -e is standardizable? I have also looked into a standard XML diff format, and talked to Adrian Mouat about standardizing his format. - code: http://treepatch.sourceforge.net/ or http://diffxml.sourceforge.net/ - dissertation/specification: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/diffxml/dissertation.ps?download I would think diff formats would generally be better off defined in separate documents so that they can be reused, HTTP and PATCH are by no means the only applications that could use a standard diff format. Lisa
Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 18:24:41 UTC