ons 2006-12-20 klockan 16:16 -0800 skrev Travis Snoozy (Volt): > All right, so wholesale replacement of HTTP-date is out of the > question. That's fine, but that still leaves the question of whether > we should be using HTTP-date for *new* constructs (see attached > message for my prior comment on this). The Date header doesn't work > for this, but if we take If-Unmodified-Since as our example (which > exists only in HTTP/1.1) why should its BNF contain any reference to > HTTP-date (and the old date formats)? I see your point, but why make the life for implementers more complicated/confused by specifying different parsing rules for different date related directives within the same specification? And in the specific example especially so considering the very close relationship with If-Modified-Since. It's as likely (relative to the number of implementations) there will be If-Umodified-Since implementations sending "bad" date formats as for the older headers.. Regards HenrikReceived on Thursday, 21 December 2006 01:00:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:24 GMT