W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:51:24 +0900
Message-ID: <4A07849C.3040404@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, "'Geoffrey Sneddon'" <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sorry to be late with this comment.

On 2009/05/09 2:48, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Brian Smith wrote:

>> I meant, why not write them like this:
>>
>> day-name = %x4D.6F.6E ; "Mon", case-sensitive
>> / %x54.75.65 ; "Tue", case-sensitive
>> / %x57.65.64 ; "Wed", case-sensitive
>> / %x54.68.75 ; "Thu", case-sensitive
>> / %x46.72.69 ; "Fri", case-sensitive
>> / %x53.61.74 ; "Sat", case-sensitive
>> / %x53.75.6E ; "Sun", case-sensitive
>>
>> It's not really a big deal, but I think this way is clearer.
>
> I was going to agree, but then realized that we would loose clarity in
> the collected ABNF (which doesn't contain the comments).

That seems to be backward. Wouldn't the comments be helpful in the 
collected ABNF, too?

Regards,   Martin.

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Monday, 11 May 2009 01:52:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:02 GMT