Really, I blame the HTTP spec for having a header that begins Accept-, 
that's a response and not a request header. That's weird. That's really 
true?  But I still don't really understand what it's use cases are exactly.

LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> 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
>>     
>
>