- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:07:25 -0700
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, 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" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Indeed, the "reverse" patch is a big scenario we are definitely planning on doing. It's just a question of what's the friendliest way to do it.
Yaron
> -----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 12:42 PM
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Lisa Dusseault'; 'Stefan Eissing'; ietf-http-
> wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Required DIFF format [was Re: PATCH Draft]
>
>
> 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 20:07:38 UTC