W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Issue 165, was: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:00:49 +0200
Message-ID: <4BB630D1.7060302@gmx.de>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
CC: 'Daniel Stenberg' <daniel@haxx.se>, 'Jamie Lokier' <jamie@shareable.org>, 'Geoffrey Sneddon' <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 19.05.2009 15:24, Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...
>> But, what does "are encouraged to" mean? Either it should be "are
>> RECOMMENDED to" (which means "SHOULD") or the statement should go. The
>> specification should not use non-RFC2119 language when making
>> recommendations.
>>
>> And, if it is to be "SHOULD", then the grammar should change to allow the
>> other cases (probably by adding an obs-rfc5322-date alternative that
>> references RFC 5322's date). Elsewhere in the document, the grammar
>> reflects
>> what parsers SHOULD accept, and the prose further restricts what
>> implementations may generate.
>> ...
>
> I have opened a separate issue for this question
> (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/165>).
> ...

The simplest way to fix this seems to add a SHOULD level requirement in 
Appendix A, which already defines tolerant date handling. Like this:

     o  Although all date formats are specified to be case-sensitive,
        recipients SHOULD match day, week and timezone names case-
        insensitively.

See 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/165/i165.diff>

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 2 April 2010 18:01:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:17 GMT