I've forwarded the issue to them.  I don't remember any of the
conversation about this feature.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of
> Joe Hourcle
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 11:05 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [CODE4LIB] SRU 2.0 / Accept-Ranges (was: Inlining HTTP
Headers in
> URLs )
> 
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> 
> > Joe Hourcle wrote:
> 
> >>   Accept-Ranges is a response header, not something that the
client's
> >> supposed to be sending.
> >>
> > Weird. Then can anyone explain why it's included as a request
parameter in
> > the SRU 2.0 draft?   Section 4.9.2.
> 
> They're not the only ones who think it's a client header:
> 
>  	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_headers
> 
> (which of course shows up #1 on google for 'http headers')
> 
> It looks like someone decided to split it into two tables:
> 
> 
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_HTTP_headers&oldid=18
> 3353617
> 
> And within a week, someone decided to add Accept-Ranges where it
didn't
> belong:
> 
> 
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_HTTP_headers&oldid=18
> 4742665
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm guessing it's a mistake -- either the SRU authors looked at the
> Wikipedia entry, or they also misread the intent of the HTTP header in
the
> RFC.
> 
> Do we have anyone affiliated with the project on this list who can
make a
> correction before it leaves draft?
> 
> -Joe