- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:50:15 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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 UTC