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: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:38:10 -0500
To: "'Dan Winship'" <dan.winship@gmail.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "'Brian Smith'" <brian@briansmith.org>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000601c9d7f8$91727b30$b4577190$@org>
Dan Winship wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
> > That being said, changing a normative requirement from RFC2616, even
> > if it's underspecified, is something we shouldn't do lightly.
> 
> Has anyone even seen an rfc850-date in the wild recently?

No, and I think the MUST-level requirement should be reduced to SHOULD for
that reason. It is analogous to the situation with line folding.

I just found that the semantics of two-digit dates are defined already in
Part 1, Appendix A, which used to be RFC 2616 Section 19.3. That statement
should be moved up to section 3.2 with the rest of date syntax and
semantics. 

- Brian
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 20:38:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT