W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2007

[i47] inconsistency in date format explanation

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 19:19:03 -0700
Message-Id: <0304B2F7-1B7A-4174-B7F0-0B8E6E082F4E@gbiv.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

The proposed resolution to this issue (in draft 03) is incorrect
because RFC1036 doesn't define the date format in question.
This was an error introduced in the 2616 editing cycle.  It should
be fixed by removing reference to 1036, as described below:

===================================================================
--- p1-messaging.xml	(revision 591531)
+++ p1-messaging.xml	(working copy)
@@ -1037,14 +1037,14 @@
</t>
<figure><artwork type="example">
     Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT  ; RFC 822, updated by RFC 1123
-   Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; RFC 850, obsoleted by RFC 1036
+   Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; obsolete RFC 850 format
     Sun Nov  6 08:49:37 1994       ; ANSI C's asctime() format
</artwork></figure>
<t>
     The first format is preferred as an Internet standard and  
represents
     a fixed-length subset of that defined by RFC 1123 <xref  
target="RFC1123"/> (an update to
-   RFC 822 <xref target="RFC822"/>). The second format is in common  
use, but is based on the
-   obsolete RFC 850 <xref target="RFC1036"/> date format and lacks a  
four-digit year.
+   RFC 822 <xref target="RFC822"/>). The other formats are described  
here only for
+   compatibility with obsolete implementations.
     HTTP/1.1 clients and servers that parse the date value &MUST;  
accept
     all three formats (for compatibility with HTTP/1.0), though they  
&MUST;
     only generate the RFC 1123 format for representing HTTP-date values
@@ -3152,17 +3156,6 @@
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1808"/>
</reference>
-<reference anchor="RFC1036">
-<front>
-<title abbrev="Standard for USENET Messages">Standard for  
interchange of USENET messages</title>
-<author initials="M." surname="Horton" fullname="M. Horton">
-<organization>AT&amp;amp;T Bell Laboratories</organization></author>
-<author initials="R." surname="Adams" fullname="R. Adams">
-<organization>Center for Seismic Studies</organization></author>
-<date month="December" year="1987"/></front>
-<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1036"/>
-</reference>
-
<reference anchor="RFC977">
<front>
<title abbrev="Network News Transfer Protocol">Network News Transfer  
Protocol</title>
================

....Roy



On Nov 29, 2006, at 4:50 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>
> 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 Saturday, 3 November 2007 02:19:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:23 GMT