Re: i51 HTTP-date vs. rfc1123-date, was: NEW ISSUE: date formats in BNF and spec text, was: RFC 2616 Errata: Misc. Typos

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:27 GMT

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> ...
>> Pointer, please?
> 
> 3.3.1, second paragraph last sentence. Not sure changes here improve the
> situation however as it's the background to the BNF construct.
> ...

Ah. I was looking about a generic statement, not just about dates (does 
this principle apply to other parts of the BNF anyway?). Thanks for 
clarifying.

> ...

Will look at the other stuff tomorrow.

Best regards, Julian