W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates

From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 07:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0905190732480.16164@egate.xpasc.com>

On Tue, 19 May 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:

> -> 50 years from when? Does the semantics of the message depend on when you 
> look at it?

50 years from now ... sure ... the problem with 2 digit years is well 
known and has been for more than 15 years. So this is simply a bad data 
fix up which has essentially no risk of a bad outcome. In the case where 
the recipient knows of a bad potential outcome for the wrong 
interpretation, such a date should be rejected ... (I don't feel a need to
say this in the spec).
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 14:36:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:49 UTC