On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, iain truskett wrote: > Is order important for @HEADERS? Would it be better to have %HEADERS > instead that does such auto-formatting? >From RFC 2068 HTTP/1.0 - 4.2 Message Headers: The order in which header fields with differing field names are received is not significant. However, it is "good practice" to send general-header fields first, followed by request-header or response- header fields, and ending with the entity-header fields. Alan Gutierrez
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Philip Newton
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Supp... iain truskett
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI ... Philip Newton
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Adam Turoff
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Hildo Biersma
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Alan Gutierrez
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support iain truskett
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Alan Gutierrez
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support James Mastros
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Adam Turoff
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Supp... James Mastros
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI ... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI ... Dan Sugalski
- Re: RFC 288 (v2) First-Class CGI Support James Mastros