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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 11:45:21 +0200
Message-ID: <4BF8F931.4070000@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 23.05.2010 04:34, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> 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?

Production of these date formats has been forbidden since RFC 2068 
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-3.3.1>):

    HTTP/1.1 clients and servers that parse the date value MUST accept
    all three formats (for compatibility with HTTP/1.0), though they MUST
    only generate the RFC 1123 format for representing HTTP-date values
    in header fields.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 23 May 2010 09:46:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:18 GMT