* "Brad Nicholes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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]
Hmm. That would be quite inconsistent against 1.3. (Actually it's a forward port). I have no real opinion about it, though. nd
