- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 17:44:47 +0200
- To: Brian Smith <brian@GOROGORO.mobi>
- CC: 'Geoffrey Sneddon' <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Brian Smith wrote: > Everything is clearly specified, but you need to navigate a circuitous route > to find the definitions. HTTP-date time is defined in terms of RFC 1123's > date construct. RFC 1123's date construct is just RFC 822's date-time > extended to support four-digit years. RFC 822 already restricted date-time > constructs to semantically valid dates. RFC 2822 obsoleted RFC 822 and RFC > 5322 obsoleted 2822. RFC 5322 clearly specifies the meaning of each > component of the date-time construct, including four-digit years. > > The HTTP spec. shouldn't be referencing RFC 1123 anymore. RFC 1123's date > construct isn't really the same as what HTTP calls rfc1123-date so the name > is misleading; "date-time" could be a better name. If the components of > HTTP-date were renamed to match the names in RFC 5233 then the specification > could then say: > > The semantics of <date-time>, <day-name>, <day>, > <month-name>, <year>, and <time-of-day> are the > same as the semantics of the RFC 5322 constructs > with the corresponding name. > > Also, the statement "[...]; it MUST be sent in rfc1123-date format" should > be removed from section 8.3 (Date), because section 3.2.1 already says: > > [Implementations] MUST only generate the RFC 1123 format for > representing HTTP-date values in header fields. > > It is straightforward to replace the other RFC 1123 references with RFC 5322 > references. > ... I have opened <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/163>, tracking this. BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2009 15:45:37 UTC