- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:15:12 -0700
- To: Suma Potluri <suma@soe.ucsc.edu>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
On Aug 15, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Suma Potluri wrote: > >> OK, there are two ways to approach that: >> >> 1) either make sure that each of the patch formats indeed has it's >> own >> MIME type, >> >> 2) use generic types, and have an additional request header >> specify the >> type of operation. >> >> From a spec writing point of view, 1) seems to be preferable to >> me. If >> you choose 2), you will essentially have to invent a new registry for >> types (IANA??), and have to maintain specifications for these types >> (which can be just pointers to existing specs). It's not entirely >> clear >> to me how this is better than registering MIME types for these >> formats. >> > > Since using the content-type header for the patch format seems to > be the > preferable in general, we could update the draft accordingly. The > required > patch format text/normal-diff could be the used for text files and > another > (optional??) patch format application/gdiff could be used for all > resources. The normal-diff format for text files seems to be > preferable > over the gdiff format because it is a widely used diff format and > could be > easily generated by the clients using the existing tools. We can > include > the MIME type registration information in the draft for text/normal- > diff > and application/gdiff patch formats. Do you have a proper reference for the normal-diff format? Are you legally allowed to document it yourself in an Internet-Draft? If not, it might be difficult in practice to register a MIME type for the normal-diff algorithm. Part of the IETF's attempt to generally protect software developers from the position of having to implement a standard requiring technology they're not allowed to use. Lisa
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 23:15:25 UTC