Re: i51 HTTP-date vs. rfc1123-date, was: NEW ISSUE: date formats in BNF and spec text, was: RFC 2616 Errata: Misc. Typos

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> tis 2007-06-19 klockan 14:47 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:
> 
>>         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?
> 
> I don't remember the exact context, but it's already there in the text.
> Just aligning it to refer to the correct BNF terms should do.

Pointer, please?

>> Feedback appreciated (please also verify the BNF comments I added).
> 
> Instead of clients/recipients I think it's better to divide in parsers /
> producers..
> 
> the reference to client is not right. rfc1123-date is the only form
> allowed to be used when constructing HTTP messages, this applies equal
> to both clients and servers.
> ...

Right, sorry. New version:

        HTTP-date    = rfc1123-date ; for use in message producers
                     | obsolete-date ; only allowed in message parsing
        obsolete-date = rfc850-date | asctime-date

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 15:24:17 UTC