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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:23:53 +0200
Message-ID: <4677F509.4010802@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> 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.

Pointer, please?

>> Feedback appreciated (please also verify the BNF comments I added).
> 
> Instead of clients/recipients I think it's better to divide in parsers /
> producers..
> 
> 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.
> ...

Right, sorry. New version:

        HTTP-date    = rfc1123-date ; for use in message producers
                     | obsolete-date ; only allowed in message parsing
        obsolete-date = rfc850-date | asctime-date

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 15:24:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:10 GMT