Re: 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 22:30:44 +0200
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <46783CF4.1020004@gmx.de>

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> ...
>> Pointer, please?
> 
> 3.3.1, second paragraph last sentence. Not sure changes here improve the
> situation however as it's the background to the BNF construct.
> ...

Ah. I was looking about a generic statement, not just about dates (does 
this principle apply to other parts of the BNF anyway?). Thanks for 
clarifying.

> ...

Will look at the other stuff tomorrow.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 20:31:01 UTC