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

Julian Reschke wrote:
> In the meantime I noticed that BAP (Bill Fenner's ABNF Parser) can
> automatically generate comments for printable byte sequences; with that
> feature turned on the generated ABNF is readable enough without the
> extra productions.
> 
> See <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/582>. The
> section now reads:
> 
> -- snip --
>       day-name     = %x4D.6F.6E ; "Mon", case-sensitive
>                    / %x54.75.65 ; "Tue", case-sensitive
>                    / %x57.65.64 ; "Wed", case-sensitive
>                    / %x54.68.75 ; "Thu", case-sensitive
>                    / %x46.72.69 ; "Fri", case-sensitive
>                    / %x53.61.74 ; "Sat", case-sensitive
>                    / %x53.75.6E ; "Sun", case-sensitive

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).

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

- Brian