feat: add HEAD handler

[eltigerchino]

closes #9468

Allows exporting the HEAD handler. Not sure if language-tools needs to be updated to remove the error message for this as well.

Please don't delete this checklist! Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following:

• It's really useful if your PR references an issue where it is discussed ahead of time. In many cases, features are absent for a reason. For large changes, please create an RFC: https://github.com/sveltejs/rfcs
• This message body should clearly illustrate what problems it solves.
• Ideally, include a test that fails without this PR but passes with it.

Tests

• Run the tests with pnpm test and lint the project with pnpm lint and pnpm check

Changesets

• If your PR makes a change that should be noted in one or more packages' changelogs, generate a changeset by running pnpm changeset and following the prompts. Changesets that add features should be minor and those that fix bugs should be patch. Please prefix changeset messages with feat:, fix:, or chore:.

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 93fb961

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
@sveltejs/kit	Minor

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[benmccann]

@s3812497 it looks like this PR will need a rebase

[eltigerchino]

Thanks for the reminder @benmccann . I've just learnt what a rebase is. I did a merge before that (hence the force push trying to undo that). Will use rebase from now on.

[benmccann]

Oh, I just use the term rebase out of habit. But really I think folks prefer if you do a merge because if they have the code checked out it's easier to pull a merge

[dummdidumm]

@s3812497 this has a merge conflict - can you look at it today? Else I'll look into it later.

[eltigerchino]

@s3812497 this has a merge conflict - can you look at it today? Else I'll look into it later.

Sure thing! I'll have a look at it now.

[benmccann]

I wonder if we'd want some sort of fallback implementation which executes GET and returns just the headers or if that defeats the purpose? I've never used HEAD before

[dummdidumm]

That fallback already exists today, and will still apply if you don't define the HEAD yourself.