- From: Travis Snoozy (Volt) <a-travis@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:31:07 -0800
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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.. > > 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? -- 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.
Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 00:31:21 UTC