- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 13:59:48 +0200
- 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 UTC