- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:50:45 +0100
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@squid-cache.org>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Henrik Nordstrom schrieb: > mån 2006-11-20 klockan 15:19 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke: >> Currently, RFC2616 says about the date format for the "Date" header >> (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-14.18>): >> >> "The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in section 3.3.1; it MUST >> be sent in RFC 1123 [8]-date format." >> >> It seems to me that this should really say: >> >> "The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in section 3.3.1; it MUST >> be sent in rfc1123-date [8] format." > > Better without the [8], making it an internal reference to the grammar. > The rfc1123-date is not a copy of RFC1123, only a subset thereof. Agreed. Will make that change in <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html#rfc.section.14.18>. > The relation to RFC 1123 is already well established elsewhere in 3.3.1, > including the MUST level requirement on sending the RFC 1123 derived > format. > > A similar RFC 1123 reference which is better replaced by a rfc1123-date > grammar reference is also seen in 14.21 Last-Modified. Agreed. See <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html#rfc.section.14.21>. Best regards and thanks for the feedback, Julian
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 14:50:59 UTC