W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: NEW ISSUE: inconsistency in date format explanation

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:50:15 -0800
Message-Id: <3C66A4EB-49AA-4988-BA31-F00741144EDF@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Added: http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i47

On 2006/11/20, at 6:46 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Hi.
>
> In Section 3.3.1, RFC2616 says (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/ 
> rfc2616#section-3.3.1>):
>
> "The second format is in common use, but is based on the obsolete  
> RFC 850 [12] date format and lacks a four-digit year."
>
> However, [12] refers to RFC1036, which obsoletes RFC850.
>
> Proposal: change to:
>
> "The second format is in common use, but is based on the obsolete  
> RFC1036 date format [12] and lacks a four-digit year."
>
> Best regards, Julian
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 00:50:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:53 GMT