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

[Simon Josefsson <[e-mail]>]

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.

/Simon