Since there is a proposal to backport this directive to the 2.0 branch, would it make more sense to rename it to something else and avoid the confusion before it is backported? It just seems a little strange to be getting an error header back in a successful response. If the point is to allow a specific header to be returned for all responses, we should probably expand the options for the Header directive rather than add a new directive.
Syntax: Header set|append|add|unset|echo header [value [env=[!]variable]] [persist] persist The response header with this name is included even on errors and persists across internal redirects. Brad Brad Nicholes Senior Software Engineer Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions http://www.novell.com >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, June 02, 2004 4:02:25 PM >>> * "Brad Nicholes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If an ErrorHeader is defined, shouldn't it only be included on > non-200 http responses (ie. only on 3xx,4xx,5xx responses as the > documentation states)? No. The documentation states: | This directive can replace, merge or remove HTTP response headers *also* | during 3xx, 4xx and 5xx replies. It's a kind of a misnomer anyway (named after r->err_headers_out). nd -- "Eine Eieruhr", erkl�rt ihr Hermann, "besteht aus einem Ei. Du nimmst das Ei und kochst es. Wenn es hart ist, sind f�nf Minuten um. Dann wei�t du, da� die Zeit vergangen ist." -- Hannes H�ttner in "Das Blaue vom Himmel"
