- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:00:23 -0700
- To: "'James M Snell'" <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Lisa Dusseault'" <ldusseault@commerce.net>, "'Stefan Eissing'" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Better to start with something known than starting from scratch. No known IP claims. Range retrieval is a kind of "server patch client". PATCH focuses on client-patch-server. But there's no reason not to consider server-patch-client, and consider range retrieval to be a special case of that. -----Original Message----- From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of James M Snell Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:42 AM To: Larry Masinter Cc: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Lisa Dusseault'; 'Stefan Eissing'; ietf-http-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: Required DIFF format [was Re: PATCH Draft] What would be the rationale for this? - James Larry Masinter wrote: > I suggest multipart/byteranges as the basis for a possible MTI format for > partial updates. > > > >
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 19:01:07 UTC