 |
 |
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 >> > >