Re: Mixed bag of comments on SVG 1.2

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Robin Berjon wrote:
>>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.
> [...]

Yes, that is very true and has probably been discussed to death in most 
lists dealing with the creation of HTTP APIs :) Most of the others have 
chosen to provide access to individual lines (I wouldn't be surprised if 
that were due to some cookies not be compatible with being listed with 
comma separation...) but I'd be in favour of deciding that SVG 
programmers are required to be smart and deal with that correctly if the 
community on this list agrees with that.

Robin Berjon

Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2004 08:12:27 UTC