- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:42:23 -0700
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- CC: 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'Lisa Dusseault' <ldusseault@commerce.net>, 'Stefan Eissing' <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Thank you for the clarification. Larry Masinter wrote: > 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 19:42:31 UTC