W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 1999

RE: HTTP-date in <DAV:getlastmodified>

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 19:47:21 -0700
Message-ID: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D087931C4@RED-MSG-59>
To: "'Joe Orton'" <jeo101@york.ac.uk>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, "Jim Whitehead (E-mail)" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
This is a good point. Jim, please add a note to the open issues list that we
need to put in some language stating that getlastmodified MUST only return
1123 dates. I think it would be fine to back date this requirement to
include HTTP/1.0 servers which implement WebDAV functionality.

It has been suggested that we forsake even the 1123 format in favor of the
more widely (outside of HTTP, that is) adopted ISO format which is used
elsewhere in the WebDAV spec (13.1 creationdate).

		Yaron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Orton [mailto:jeo101@york.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999 6:33 AM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: HTTP-date in <DAV:getlastmodified>
> 
> 
> 
> Client-side, do I need to be able to parse anything other than
> RFC1123-style dates? 2068 says something like servers MUST 
> only generate
> 1123-style for use 'in header fields', is it the intention 
> that this MUST
> extends to getlastmodified too? If so, may be worth simply saying
> 'RFC1123-style dates' in the spec rather than HTTP-date, for 
> clarity. (Or
> maybe change the HTTP spec to not be specific about 'header fields'.)
> 
> joe
> 
> -- 
> Joe Orton
> jeo101@york.ac.uk ... joe@orton.demon.co.uk
> http://www.orton.demon.co.uk/
> 
Received on Monday, 10 May 1999 22:47:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:49 GMT