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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:38:45 +0100
Message-ID: <45892ED5.9040305@gmx.de>
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 GMT

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