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

Brian Smith wrote:
> ...
> I think that does make the grammar more readable.
> 
>>     The semantics of day-name, day, month, year, and time-of-day are
>>     the same as those defined in the RFC 5322 constructs with the
>>     corresponding name ([RFC5322], Section 3.3).
> 
> This wording is a little off. Try:
> 
>       The semantics of day-name, day, month, year, and time-of-day are
>       the same as semantics of the RFC 5322 constructs with the
>       corresponding name ([RFC5322], Section 3.3).

That doesn't sound better to me, but that may be caused by me not being 
a native English speaker.

> Note that this change resolves the issue for rfc1123-date but not for the
> obsolete forms. 
> ...

Yes, I already pointed that out. Do you have a proposal how to get there 
(which would to consider existing implementations)?

BR, Julian