RE: RFC 2616 Errata: Misc. Typos

2006-12-18 16:12 -0800, Henrik Nordstrom said:

> > 3. Section 14.18, page 124:
> >
> > The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in section 3.3.1; it MUST
> be sent in <ins>the </ins>RFC 1123 [8]<del>-</del><ins> </ins>date format.
> The section has already been rewritten to read
> "MUST be sent in rfc1123-date format."
> latest.html#rfc.section.14.18
> but perhaps you are right that there should still be a "the" infront..
> in such case it also also applies to 14.21 which uses the exact same
> language.

On closer inspection, shouldn't the BNF for that section (14.18) be "rfc1123-date" and not "HTTP-date"? I mean, why say it's an HTTP-date, but only RFC 1123 form is allowed (conflicting with the definition of HTTP-date)*? Likewise, shouldn't we just use the rfc1123-date moniker throughout the document whenever explicitly referring to only dates in RFC 1123 format?

-- Travis

* Perhaps to answer my own question: it could be that the BNF is intending to represent the loosest set of values the field could take, i.e., that an implementation MUST be able to parse a message containing such a construct, even if generating such a message would be in violation of the specification. Then that leaves the question of whether or not Date exists in HTTP/1.0, and if not, if there's any compelling reason to use HTTP-date over rfc1123-date.

Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 00:31:21 UTC