Re: PATCH draft

Hi Julian,

--On January 30, 2009 6:01:00 PM +0100 Julian Reschke 
<> wrote:

> I think what you're looking for is
> <>. This used to be
> in the PATCH I-D, but James moved it into a separate spec (which I think
> was a good idea in order to keep PATCH as simple as possible).

Yes, that looks good, but it is expired.

However, the definition of 209 in PATCH still seems a little odd without 
reference to that. Is 209 absolutely needed in PATCH? Could that instead be 
moved to James document as a separate section describing the interaction of 
Prefer and PATCH? Alternatively we could progress James document at the 
same time as PATCH and cross-reference - but maybe we don't want to delay 

Cyrus Daboo

Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 20:51:41 UTC