3.3.1 Full date

• From: Mike Cowlishaw <mfc@vnet.ibm.com>
• Date: Sun, 26 Mar 95 14:44:28 BST
• To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
• Message-Id: <9503261339.AA01638@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Just the one followup to Roy Fielding's reply of 23 Mar 1995 21:47:39 ..

> > 3.3.1 Full date
> >
> >   a. I haven't ever seen the asctime() format arrive at any of my
> >      servers -- can this be dropped as a requirement?  RFC 850 does
> >      still seem to be around, however.
>
> I've only seen asctime() from some PC-based servers -- no browsers.
> I don't see any value in dropping it beyond the existing requirement
> that it never be generated.

I do see a value in a change here -- as stated, servers have to
implement (and test) handling of the asctime() format, even though it's
known not to be necessary.  I'd like an addition saying that servers do
not need to accept this format.  At present, the draft says that they
must.

Mike Cowlishaw

Received on Sunday, 26 March 1995 05:49:53 UTC