- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:00:49 +0200
- To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- CC: 'Daniel Stenberg' <daniel@haxx.se>, 'Jamie Lokier' <jamie@shareable.org>, 'Geoffrey Sneddon' <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 19.05.2009 15:24, Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...
>> But, what does "are encouraged to" mean? Either it should be "are
>> RECOMMENDED to" (which means "SHOULD") or the statement should go. The
>> specification should not use non-RFC2119 language when making
>> recommendations.
>>
>> And, if it is to be "SHOULD", then the grammar should change to allow the
>> other cases (probably by adding an obs-rfc5322-date alternative that
>> references RFC 5322's date). Elsewhere in the document, the grammar
>> reflects
>> what parsers SHOULD accept, and the prose further restricts what
>> implementations may generate.
>> ...
>
> I have opened a separate issue for this question
> (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/165>).
> ...
The simplest way to fix this seems to add a SHOULD level requirement in
Appendix A, which already defines tolerant date handling. Like this:
o Although all date formats are specified to be case-sensitive,
recipients SHOULD match day, week and timezone names case-
insensitively.
See
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/165/i165.diff>
Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 2 April 2010 18:01:31 UTC