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

Re: NEW ISSUE: date formats in BNF and spec text, was: RFC 2616 Errata: Misc. Typos

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:30:36 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1166603436.8310.15.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
tis 2006-12-19 klockan 09:42 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke:

> > On closer inspection, shouldn't the BNF for that section (14.18) be
> "rfc1123-date" and not "HTTP-date"? I mean, why say it's an HTTP-date,
> but only RFC 1123 form is allowed (conflicting with the definition of
> HTTP-date)*? Likewise, shouldn't we just use the rfc1123-date moniker
> throughout the document whenever explicitly referring to only dates in
> RFC 1123 format?
> 
> I have thought about that myself, but didn't have time to bring it up yet.

It's an HTTP-date.

HTTP-date is a wierd beast in that it's an asymmetric specification,
where parsing and composing differs. The BNF specifies many formats
everyone must understand, but the notes clarify that only rfc1123-date
may be sent.

Because of this each use of HTTP-date stresses this, in a best effort to
ensure no implementer mistakenly thinks that it's valid to send any of
the HTTP-date variants that must be accepted.

Regards
Henrik

Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 08:30:50 GMT

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