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