- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:42:56 +0100
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- CC: "Travis Snoozy (Volt)" <a-travis@microsoft.com>
Travis Snoozy (Volt) schrieb: > 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." >> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis- >> latest.html#rfc.section.14.18 >> >> but perhaps you are right that there should still be a "the" infront.. I'll let the native English speakers vote on that one :-) >> 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? I have thought about that myself, but didn't have time to bring it up yet. > -- 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. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 09:09:57 UTC