W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: NEW ISSUE: typo (?) in 14.18, rfc1123-format

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:50:45 +0100
Message-ID: <456EEFC5.3090000@gmx.de>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:53 GMT