W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Mixed bag of comments on SVG 1.2

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:17:34 +0100
To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <4063ea31.776146109@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>

* Robin Berjon wrote:
>> In 17.8.1 URLRequest Interface:
>> |NameValuePair getResponseHeader( in unsigned long index ); 
>> 
>> I'd like an interface which accessed it by Response Header name,
>> rather than just by index, having to iterate over them all querying
>> the name is almost certainly silly.  (I've not checked but I believe
>> the header name is case insensitive - certainly most server
>> convenience apis treat it as such - so this shouldn't be hard to
>> implement.
>
>This could be useful, the downside being that some headers appear 
>multiple times so you'd have to always return an Array which since there 
>is no Array in the IDL, means we'd have to have an interface for 
>URLHeaderList. Which in turn means you're probably happier writing your 
>own wrapper :)

Note that RFC 2616 says for HTTP/1.1

[...]
   Multiple message-header fields with the same field-name MAY be
   present in a message if and only if the entire field-value for that
   header field is defined as a comma-separated list [i.e., #(values)].
   It MUST be possible to combine the multiple header fields into one
   "field-name: field-value" pair, without changing the semantics of the
   message, by appending each subsequent field-value to the first, each
   separated by a comma.
[...]

For example

  Accept: text/html
  Accept: image/svg+xml
  Accept: */*

would be combined to

  Accept: text/html,image/svg+xml,*/*

For legal responses, access by name is not a problem. In HTTP at least.
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2004 15:17:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:26 GMT