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 22:48:15 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1182286095.31612.162.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
tis 2007-06-19 klockan 22:30 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:

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

Not sure there is many other examples in the current BNF. There probably
is some minor ones, but I can't remember one..

But I'm also of the opinion that a cleanup similar to RFC2822 would do
HTTP a great deal good, and might even be within our intended scope if
done carefully. But that discussion is best left until we reach the ABNF
goal, allowing some automated tests of the BNF scope.


Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 20:48:34 UTC

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