W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

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

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:00:10 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1182265210.31612.103.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
tis 2007-06-19 klockan 14:47 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:

>         HTTP-date    = rfc1123-date ; for use by HTTP clients
>                      | obsolete-date ; only allowed for recipients
>         obsolete-date = rfc850-date | asctime-date
> Question:
> In Prague we also talked about adding an "explanatory note to BNF 
> section" -- was that meant to be a generic statement that the BNF 
> includes some productions that producers should not use? Any concrete 
> suggestions for text?

I don't remember the exact context, but it's already there in the text.
Just aligning it to refer to the correct BNF terms should do.

> Feedback appreciated (please also verify the BNF comments I added).

Instead of clients/recipients I think it's better to divide in parsers /

the reference to client is not right. rfc1123-date is the only form
allowed to be used when constructing HTTP messages, this applies equal
to both clients and servers.


Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 15:00:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:42 UTC