Re: No-fail `document` Function Spec

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 10:07:34PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * John L. Clark <[email protected]> [1970-01-01 01:00]:
Whoa, how did this happen? -----------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bizarre.  Anyway.

> >I look forward to your feedback.
> 
> I haven???t looked at previous discussion yet (assuming any took
> place), so forgive me if I am reiterating something that has been
> gone over, but: I???d suggest including the response headers in the
> result node-set. F.ex. knowing that the response was
> `401 Unauthorized` is fairly useless if there???s no way to access
> the `WWW-Authenticate` header that accompanied it.

There hasn't been any substantive discussion on this extension yet.  I'm
sorry, but I'm dense: I don't understand the purpose of your suggestion.
Could you be a bit more explicit about how you would intend to use the
information from the `WWW-Authenticate` header?

For example, I try to pull down <http://www.w3.org/Member/> using
`res:document`, and I get back an http protocol error report with 401 in
the code field.  If I had access to the `WWW-Authenticate` header
information (in this case, `Basic realm="W3C-Member"', likely shunted
into a more pleasant XML structure), what would I do with it?

Take care,

    John L. Clark

_______________________________________________
exslt mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.exslt.org/list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEBMLTjkcskvOyl78RAj4SAKCpgzsNozokKHZrf6OvHrnroMMbKQCcD3jc
uRt99GuweGUwFMXceywbP7M=
=Gbmq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----