Re: PATCH and WebDAV, was Re: PATCH Draft

James M Snell wrote:
> I can understand why this would be desirable. I, however, am nowhere
> near qualified to discuss any reasonable considerations for WebDAV.

Well, we can help with that; it's just not clear whether we want that in 
the same spec. Many people automatically ignore things just because the 
term WebDAV comes up.

> Regarding the "DAV:supported-patch-formats" suggestion, why wouldn't the
> Accept-Patch response header be enough?

If you can get the data with PROPFIND, you may be able save another 
round trip.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 17:45:38 UTC