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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 13:59:48 +0200
Message-ID: <4A114DB4.5010501@gmx.de>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
CC: 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 12:00:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT