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. -- Brane
