W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1995

Re: http-v10-spec-01.ps nits

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 95 16:17:43 EDT
Message-Id: <199508082025.AA162993549@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: fielding@beach.w3.org
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org> wrote:
  > >[Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com> wrote:]
  > >p.42 Sect. 8.12
  > >	Shouldn't the date format be rfc1123-date, not HTTP-date (which
  > >	would allow the deprecated asctime-date).
  > 
  > No.  RFC 1123 accepts a much larger set of formats -- the HTTP one is
  > simply a fixed and unambiguous format that is acceptable by RFC 1123.

I'm confused.  I wasn't talking about RFC 1123, but about the token
rfc1123-date (p.13), which defines a specific date format.  The token
HTTP-date allows one of three different date formats, one of which is
rfc1123-date.  I assumed you wanted to specify just one of those formats.

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 8 August 1995 13:27:53 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:23 EDT