W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

i51, was: Moving to editorial: i39 / i51 / i61 / i64 / i94

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:25:59 +0200
Message-ID: <47F4E8F7.9040302@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...
> * i51 - HTTP-date vs. rfc1123-date
> ...

I think there was no real consensus for a change, see for instance Roy 
in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0293.html>:

RF> No, there is no need for any changes in that section (aside from
RF> updating the BNF to the ABNF standard).
RF>
RF> The BNF is for parsing the superset of what is allowed in a message,
RF> not for defining all of the specifics of each message generation.
RF> All IETF specs that use BNF specify it to be lenient in what is
RF> received,
RF> while the text requirements add limitations to be conservative in
RF> what is sent.

My proposal is to either close as WONTFIX, or to do a minimal BNF change 
that makes the intent a bit more clearer, as proposed by Henrik in 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0289.html>:

HN> Maybe we shoud split the HTTP-date BNF for the older dates in two steps
HN> to stress this within the BNF as well? I.e. something like the
HN> following:
HN>
HN> 	HTTP-date     = rfc1123-date | obsolete-date
HN> 	obsolete-date = rfc850-date | asctime-date

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 14:26:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:46 GMT