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:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf
Of
Joe Hourcle
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 11:05 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
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
