- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:10:00 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Lisa Dusseault <lisad@messagingarchitects.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
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