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

[Simon Josefsson <[e-mail]>]

Jon Moore <[e-mail]> writes:

> I think application/{diff,patch} and text/{diff,patch} both have their
> places. The application/* version will be easier to specify, for
> sure. However, a very, very common use case for diff is exchanging
> source code diffs against ASCII-encoded files; being able to have a
> text/* version means, for example, that many clients will be able to
> treat them as generic text files--for example, a browser could just
> display the diff rather than downloading it. So the text/* version
> might be more generally consumable.
>
> There are probably some very simple rules by which a producer could
> run 'diff' and know that the output could be labelled 'text/diff'
> without much extra work (for example, if the two documents given as
> arguments to diff have the same encoding, and it is one of us-ascii,
> iso-8859-*, or utf-8,then you're good).

Agreed.

> My intent would be to document both media types. Does anyone have opinions regarding whether this should be one or two RFCs?

I would prefer one document, for easier review and less text
duplication.

/Simon