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 2007-06-19 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from April to June 2007)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:47:00 +0200
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4677D044.7000905@gmx.de>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> Added as i51;
>   http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/index.html#i51
 > ...

I had an action item for this one: 
<http://www.w3.org/2007/03/18-rfc2616-minutes.html#action22>.

So far I have only changed the ABNF as suggested 
(<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html#rfc.issue.i51-http-date-vs-rfc1123-date>), 
now it says:

        HTTP-date    = rfc1123-date ; for use by HTTP clients
                     | obsolete-date ; only allowed for recipients
        obsolete-date = rfc850-date | asctime-date

Question:

In Prague we also talked about adding an "explanatory note to BNF 
section" -- was that meant to be a generic statement that the BNF 
includes some productions that producers should not use? Any concrete 
suggestions for text?

Feedback appreciated (please also verify the BNF comments I added).

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 12:47:22 UTC