Re: PATCH draft

That would be fine. The 209 response code is not critical in this case.

Regarding the Prefers header draft... if there is enough interest, I 
will revive it. I let it expire because there did not appear to be 
enough interest in pursuing it.

- James

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Cyrus Daboo wrote:
>> 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 PATCH.
> I wouldn't object to making the PATCH I-D even simpler, and to move 
> 209 somewhere else.
> BR, Julian

Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 22:10:42 UTC