- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 12:07:02 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Travis Snoozy (Volt)" <a-travis@microsoft.com>
Added as i51; http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/index.html#i51 On 2006/12/19, at 7:42 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > 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 > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 1 January 2007 01:07:12 UTC