Re: [i47] inconsistency in date format explanation

• From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
• Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 11:25:35 +0100
• To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
• CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <472C4C9F.1050206@gmx.de>

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
> 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:
> ...

Good catch, thanks. Updated 
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html#rfc.issue.i47-inconsistency-in-date-format-explanation> 
accordingly.

Now this is a good example that external references are more useful when 
they point to a specific section; in this case this would have made 
easier to detect the problem.

By that reasoning, shouldn't we possibly say:

   Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; obsolete format defined in [RFC850], 
Section 2.1.4

instead of

   Sunday, 06-Nov-94 08:49:37 GMT ; obsolete RFC 850 format

?

Best regards, Julian

Received on Saturday, 3 November 2007 10:25:56 UTC