W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

RE: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:13:33 -0500
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Brian Smith'" <brian@briansmith.org>
Cc: "'Geoffrey Sneddon'" <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001101c9d008$b45a91c0$1d0fb540$@org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Brian Smith wrote:
> > The semantics of the obsolete date formats are not defined. How is a
> > server supposed to interpret a 2-digit year?
> 
> Good question. Do you have an answer? Can we mandate the rules in
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-4.3>?

I don't have an answer. RFC 5322's rules are just as good as any, I suppose.

> 
> >>       asctime-date = day-name SP date3 SP time-of-day SP 4DIGIT
> >>       date2        = 2DIGIT "-" month "-" 2DIGIT
> >>                      ; day-month-year (e.g., 02-Jun-82)
> >
> > Might as well use "day" and "year":
> 
> We can re-use "day", but not "year" (because it's 4DIGIT).

I meant, use <day> for <date2> and <year> for <asctime-date>.

- Brian
Received on Friday, 8 May 2009 18:14:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:02 GMT