NEW ISSUE: inconsistency in date format explanation

• From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
• Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:46:39 +0100
• To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <4561BFCF.1040404@gmx.de>

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

Received on Monday, 20 November 2006 14:46:44 UTC