Re: NEW ISSUE: date formats in BNF and spec text, was: RFC 2616 Errata: Misc. Typos

tis 2006-12-19 klockan 09:42 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke:

> > 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.

It's an HTTP-date.

HTTP-date is a wierd beast in that it's an asymmetric specification,
where parsing and composing differs. The BNF specifies many formats
everyone must understand, but the notes clarify that only rfc1123-date
may be sent.

Because of this each use of HTTP-date stresses this, in a best effort to
ensure no implementer mistakenly thinks that it's valid to send any of
the HTTP-date variants that must be accepted.


Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 08:30:50 UTC