Re: [ietf-types] Status of application/patch or text/patch?

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-07-19 14:12, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Jon Moore <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Given the recent arrival of HTTP PATCH in RFC 5789[1], it seems like
>> registering a media type for the output of the 'diff' utility would be
>> a good idea. I found this thread from 2007 where Julian Reschke
>> proposed this exact thing:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg00591.html
>>
>> Does anyone know where this landed? I'd like to pick up the torch and
>> at least work on text/diff (using the unified diff format, and limited
>> to those diffs that can be rendered as valid text/* types). I've
>> started putting together an Internet Draft for it, but was wondering
>> if this had actually run into technical trouble, or if it just ran out
>> of steam in 2007.
>
> The issue of how to deal with different character encodings were
> unresolved, and I think it is important to get right.  The approach to
> specify an application/patch is the easy way out.  Trying to resolve it
> for a text/patch may be possible, but I fear it will be problematic in
> practice.  Thus I lean towards a application/patch.

Could you elaborate of what exactly you think would be easier to specify 
using application/patch instead of text/patch?

Best regards, Julian