summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/paste/httpheaders.py
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorcce <devnull@localhost>2005-12-27 20:50:56 +0000
committercce <devnull@localhost>2005-12-27 20:50:56 +0000
commit1d473c7ca00985e1824deef83dbdda4fa2e5f29d (patch)
tree2491e1a6ebcd6b02dc355efe674758c11e0dac06 /paste/httpheaders.py
parentc8be1aa79910ff3d8a45e0744eb1f42371b5eb82 (diff)
downloadpaste-1d473c7ca00985e1824deef83dbdda4fa2e5f29d.tar.gz
descriptive chanages
Diffstat (limited to 'paste/httpheaders.py')
-rw-r--r--paste/httpheaders.py11
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 5 deletions
diff --git a/paste/httpheaders.py b/paste/httpheaders.py
index aa5e432..3658948 100644
--- a/paste/httpheaders.py
+++ b/paste/httpheaders.py
@@ -33,9 +33,7 @@ that takes one of the following:
``"public, max-age=60480"``
Each ``HTTPHeader`` instance also provides several methods wich act on
-a WSGI collection, for setting or getting header values. The first
-argument of these methods is the collection, and all remaining arguments
-are equivalent to invoking ``__call__(*args, **kwargs)``.
+a WSGI collection, for removing and setting header values.
``delete(collection)``
@@ -48,6 +46,9 @@ are equivalent to invoking ``__call__(*args, **kwargs)``.
This method does an in-place replacement of the given header entry,
for example: ``ContentLength(response_headers,len(body))``
+ The first argument is a valid ``environ`` dictionary or
+ ``response_headers`` list; remaining arguments are passed on to
+ ``__call__(*args, **kwargs)`` for value construction.
This particular approach to managing headers within a WSGI collection
has several advantages:
@@ -60,7 +61,7 @@ has several advantages:
2. For specific headers with validation, using ``__call__`` will
result in an automatic header value check. For example, the
ContentDisposition header will reject a value having ``maxage``
- or ``max_age`` (the appropriate parameter is ``max_age``).
+ or ``max_age`` (the appropriate parameter is ``max-age``).
3. When appending/replacing headers, the field-name has the suggested
RFC capitalization (e.g. ``Content-Type`` or ``ETag``) for
@@ -83,7 +84,7 @@ has several advantages:
which violates the RFC's recommendation about combining header
content into a single entry using comma separation [1]
-A particular difficulty with HTTPHeaders is a categorization of
+A particular difficulty with HTTP message headers is a categorization of
sorts as described in section 4.2:
Multiple message-header fields with the same field-name MAY be