On Feb 12, 2011, at 8:02 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 12.02.2011 23:00, Graham Leggett wrote: >> On 12 Feb 2011, at 10:23 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> >>>> As part of https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16521, >>>> we currently accept dates that are trailed by extra characters >>>> without complaining. The following patch marks such dates as >>>> APR_DATE_BAD. Does this patch make sense? >>> >>> No, we don't complain because some clients send dates with extra >>> junk on the end, like Netscape did with the ugly ;len=size crap >>> on the end of an IMS field. >> >> That was my gut feel, which is why I asked - if we've managed to get >> as far as gleaning a date from the string, that should be good enough. >> >> I'll mark that part as wontfix. > > Sorry, how is this APR's problem? Shouldn't HTTPD do the nonstandard > browser-specific request header parsing? By leaving this in, we condemn > all other APR users to writing validation code.
The code was developed for httpd and inherited by APR. If APR wants to change its function, then define a new function name and leave the old one as is. ....Roy
