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 22:45:44 +0100
Message-ID: <4589AF08.9000500@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@squid-cache.org>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Henrik Nordstrom schrieb:
> ons 2006-12-20 klockan 13:38 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Not sure if it's possible to corretly express the requirement of
> HTTP-date using BNF grammar.. I.e. how to express elements which must be
> understood in parsing using the grammar, but which must not be used when
> composing using the the grammar.
> 
> The main definition of HTTP-date where also the background information
> on why things are as they are is in 3.3.1.
> 
> Maybe we shoud split the HTTP-date BNF for the older dates in two steps
> to stress this within the BNF as well? I.e. something like the
> following:
> 
> 	HTTP-date     = rfc1123-date | obsolete-date
> 	obsolete-date = rfc850-date | asctime-date

That sounds like a good improvement.
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 21:46:07 GMT

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