- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:28:51 +0200
- To: Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@commerce.net>
- CC: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Lisa Dusseault wrote: > That's true. To be more clear, what I had in mind was requiring a MTI > diff format for one particular case, that of a server that stores > resources exactly as the client PUTs them, and the GET result is also > byte-for-byte identical. This is a fairly common case, particularly > among WebDAV servers. > > For resources that are stored exactly the way they appear on the wire, I > cannot think of a case where a binary diff is going to cause problems. > > Thus, the language I'd proposed was something like: > > In order to improve potential interoperability, servers that store > resources unchanged > (or can apply deltas as if resources are stored unchanged) are > RECOMMENDED to > support [FOO] as a common-denominator approach. > > The problem with this is not the desirability of it -- for any server > that wants to support PATCH and returns byte-for-byte identical > resources, it's desirable to have a PATCH format that clients are likely > to know. The problem is rather that there is no binary patch format > with a legitimately registered MIME type. And that's why we don't want to make a normative requirement here at all, right? That being said, I'm happy to start work on a *simple* format that would work well in the WebDAV case. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 10:29:03 UTC