- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:40:59 +0200
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> 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. I probably wouldn't have the time to take ownership, but I certainly would want to help. IMHO, the goal should be to have a very simple format for binary diffs, similar with functionality equivalent with GDIFF. Re: "diff -e": this is part of the GNU Diff documentation (<http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/manual/html_node/Detailed-Normal.html#Detailed%20Normal>), so it should be possible to use it without IPR-fear :-) Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 19:41:38 UTC