httpbis: Ticket #47: inconsistency in date format explanation

Link:  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/47

Origin:  http://www.w3.org/mid/4561BFCF.1040404@gmx.de

Component: p1-messaging

In Section 3.3.1, RFC2616 says:

"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.

Mails

Mails by Sender (Top 10) Mails by Month

Associated Checkins

mnot@pobox.com (Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:28:58 GMT)
[12]: And one file to make them all (assuming you have saxon installed).
fielding@gbiv.com (Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:46:01 GMT)
[82]: Resolve #47: inconsistency in date format explanation

History

: comment added (Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:28:58 GMT)

Proposal: "The second format is in common use, but is based on the obsolete RFC1036 date format [12] and lacks a four-digit year."

: comment added; resolution, component set; status changed (Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:46:01 GMT)

Fixed in [82]

: comment added (Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:23:55 GMT)

Not sure it's ok to drop RFC1036 from the references section...

: comment added (Tue, 01 Jan 2008 16:41:15 GMT)

I am sure. RFC 1036 does not define the date format being described because the format was obsolete by then. That is why it is the rfc850 format as opposed to the netnews format. A pointer to 1036 is worse than meaningless. In any case, these are just informative references.

Related Information

Issues List Index