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: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 19:08:41 +0100
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
Cc: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090517180841.GC13426@shareable.org>
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> 
> On 8 May 2009, at 18:08, Brian Smith wrote:
> 
> >I don't get why s-Mon, s-Jan, l-Mon, etc. are named productions  
> >(instead of
> >unnamed alternatives like in RFC 5023), but that is not new to this  
> >change.
> 
> Case sensitivity. Plain strings in ABNF are case insensitive.

Oh.  I didn't realise date strings in HTTP were case sensitive.  I
just thought they were always generated that way for maximum
compatibility and convention, in the same way that we capitalise HTTP
header names according to convention.

-- Jamie
Received on Sunday, 17 May 2009 18:09:26 GMT

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