- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:25:59 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > ... > * i51 - HTTP-date vs. rfc1123-date > ... I think there was no real consensus for a change, see for instance Roy in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0293.html>: RF> No, there is no need for any changes in that section (aside from RF> updating the BNF to the ABNF standard). RF> RF> The BNF is for parsing the superset of what is allowed in a message, RF> not for defining all of the specifics of each message generation. RF> All IETF specs that use BNF specify it to be lenient in what is RF> received, RF> while the text requirements add limitations to be conservative in RF> what is sent. My proposal is to either close as WONTFIX, or to do a minimal BNF change that makes the intent a bit more clearer, as proposed by Henrik in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006OctDec/0289.html>: HN> Maybe we shoud split the HTTP-date BNF for the older dates in two steps HN> to stress this within the BNF as well? I.e. something like the HN> following: HN> HN> HTTP-date = rfc1123-date | obsolete-date HN> obsolete-date = rfc850-date | asctime-date BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 14:26:43 UTC