- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:38:45 +0100
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Henrik Nordstrom schrieb: > 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. Understood. What makes me nervous is that we have a MUST requirement to use rfc1123-dates, but then the grammar allows something else. I understand the intent, I'm just skeptical about how it's done. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 12:39:15 UTC