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 on 2007-06-20 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from April to June 2007)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:38:13 +0200
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <467911A5.80508@gmx.de>

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> ...
> 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..
> ...

We already made that change, right 
(<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html#rfc.section.14.18>)? 


    The Date general-header field represents the date and time at which
    the message was originated, having the same semantics as orig-date in
    [RFC2822].  The field value is an HTTP-date, as described in
    Section 3.3.1; it MUST be sent in rfc1123-date format.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 11:38:33 UTC