RE: weak etags vs PATCH, was: Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt from Brian Smith on 2009-10-20 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from October to December 2009)

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:33:12 -0500
To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Lisa Dusseault'" <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001701ca5136$0fbabaa0$2f302fe0$@org>

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2009, at 6:38 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
> There is nothing stopping the patch format from including a
> strong version indicator, content hash, or even a context-based
> collaborative merging mechanism in the format itself.  The notion
> that PATCH must use conditionals is absurd given that the original
> idea came from the patch command that intentionally supports
> non-overlapping edits in any sequence.

Yes, of course. I overlooked the obvious there. 
Regards,
Brian

Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 03:33:44 UTC