Hassan Schroeder wrote:
> Garret Wilson wrote:
>> Thanks for the example. Note, however, that you're example
>> doesn't enumerate *all* the accept headers, which means it won't work
>> if a browser decides to sent each accept string as a separate header.
>
> True -- is that legal? I just looked at RFC2616 and it doesn't seem
> to be explicitly specified, so...
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. The order in which header fields with the same
field-name are received is therefore significant to the
interpretation of the combined field value, and thus a proxy MUST NOT
change the order of these field values when a message is forwarded.
(RFC 2616, 32)
(I ran into several years ago working on a SIP processor, but that's
another story.)
> I know I've never seen a UA do that
> but if it's possible, Murphy will make it happen at the worst possible
> time :-)
Well, considering 9X% of the market is using Murphysoft browsers, we
better code for that possibility... ;)
I found an article that gives a nice overview of the situation we've
been discussing:
http://www.greytower.net/en/archive/articles/xhtmlcontent.html
Best,
Garret
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
|