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 <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 02:00:22 +0100
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1166662822.26316.108.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
ons 2006-12-20 klockan 16:16 -0800 skrev Travis Snoozy (Volt):

> All right, so wholesale replacement of HTTP-date is out of the
> question. That's fine, but that still leaves the question of whether
> we should be using HTTP-date for *new* constructs (see attached
> message for my prior comment on this). The Date header doesn't work
> for this, but if we take If-Unmodified-Since as our example (which
> exists only in HTTP/1.1) why should its BNF contain any reference to
> HTTP-date (and the old date formats)?

I see your point, but why make the life for implementers more
complicated/confused by specifying different parsing rules for different
date related directives within the same specification? And in the
specific example especially so considering the very close relationship
with If-Modified-Since.

It's as likely (relative to the number of implementations) there will be
If-Umodified-Since implementations sending "bad" date formats as for the
older headers..


Received on Thursday, 21 December 2006 01:00:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:40 UTC