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 22:22:24 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1182284544.31612.138.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
tis 2007-06-19 klockan 17:23 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:
> 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?

3.3.1, second paragraph last sentence. Not sure changes here improve the
situation however as it's the background to the BNF construct.

14.18, first paragraph last sentence. Changing this to refer to the BNF
instead of RFC1123 would make a lot sense as it's not really the RFC1123
date allowed (restricted to GMT)..

just look for the RFC 1123 references relating to dates..

> 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

Looks better.

Regards
Henrik

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 20:22:32 GMT

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