- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:45:44 +0100
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@squid-cache.org>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Henrik Nordstrom schrieb: > 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 > following: > > HTTP-date = rfc1123-date | obsolete-date > obsolete-date = rfc850-date | asctime-date That sounds like a good improvement.
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 21:46:07 UTC