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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 12:34:42 +1000
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <C6CB3D08-A55D-4471-89D8-1397D77805EA@mnot.net>
To: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>

On 20/05/2009, at 12:35 AM, David Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> -> 50 years from when? Does the semantics of the message depend on when you look at it?
> 50 years from now ... sure ... the problem with 2 digit years is well known and has been for more than 15 years. So this is simply a bad data fix up which has essentially no risk of a bad outcome. In the case where the recipient knows of a bad potential outcome for the wrong interpretation, such a date should be rejected ... (I don't feel a need to
> say this in the spec).

If we're going to disallow producing these dates when HTTPbis publishes, it seems like it would be reasonable to choose a fixed date -- say, Jan 1 2050?

I doubt that any valid HTTP messages were generated before 1950, and I *hope* that any remaining implementations that generate two-digit dates will be gone by 2050...


Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 23 May 2010 02:35:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:53 UTC