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: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 09:57:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4BFA85E4.3030203@gmail.com>
To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 05/24/2010 06:29 AM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> sön 2010-05-23 klockan 12:34 +1000 skrev Mark Nottingham:
> 
>> 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...
> 
> Is any such implementations seen today to a significant amount?
>
> Note: The Squid implementation uses 1970-2070 for two digit years, and I
> would expect quite many others doing the same considering limits of Unix
> timestamps (0 == 1 Jan 1970).

You definitely still see 2-digit years in Set-Cookie headers, and
draft-ietf-http-state-08 says to interpret them as 1969-2068 (presumably
allowing for the possibility that people might mistakenly convert 0 to a
date in their local timezone rather than UTC). If we're going to say
something, it would be nice to be consistent with that.

-- Dan
Received on Monday, 24 May 2010 13:58:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:19 GMT