W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2006

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

From: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@squid-cache.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:35:06 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1166650506.12389.41.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
ons 2006-12-20 klockan 13:38 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke:

> What makes me nervous is that we have a MUST requirement to use 
> rfc1123-dates, but then the grammar allows something else. I understand 
> the intent, I'm just skeptical about how it's done.

Not sure if it's possible to corretly express the requirement of
HTTP-date using BNF grammar.. I.e. how to express elements which must be
understood in parsing using the grammar, but which must not be used when
composing using the the grammar.

The main definition of HTTP-date where also the background information
on why things are as they are is in 3.3.1.

Maybe we shoud split the HTTP-date BNF for the older dates in two steps
to stress this within the BNF as well? I.e. something like the

	HTTP-date     = rfc1123-date | obsolete-date
	obsolete-date = rfc850-date | asctime-date


Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 21:35:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 September 2019 17:47:10 UTC