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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 20:17:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4A047741.6020705@gmx.de>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
CC: 'Geoffrey Sneddon' <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Brian Smith wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but we can't just impose a rule because we like it, unless we are 
sure it's what's actually implemented.

>>>>       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>.

Ack. (see my new patch)

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 8 May 2009 18:18:23 GMT

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