Ignore:
Timestamp:
Dec 1, 2010, 4:07:53 AM (9 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@…
Message:

bump up document dates, update to latest version of rfc2629.xslt

File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.html

    r1085 r1095  
    232232  margin-left: 0em;
    233233}
    234 ul.ind {
     234ul.ind, ul.ind ul {
    235235  list-style: none;
    236236  margin-left: 1.5em;
     
    356356  }
    357357  @top-right {
    358        content: "November 2010";
     358       content: "December 2010";
    359359  }
    360360  @top-center {
     
    400400      <link rel="Appendix" title="C Alternative Approaches to Internationalization" href="#rfc.section.C">
    401401      <link rel="Appendix" title="D Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)" href="#rfc.section.D">
    402       <meta name="generator" content="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629.xslt, Revision 1.531, 2010-10-31 21:50:52, XSLT vendor: SAXON 8.9 from Saxonica http://www.saxonica.com/">
     402      <meta name="generator" content="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629.xslt, Revision 1.536, 2010-11-29 12:56:12, XSLT vendor: SAXON 8.9 from Saxonica http://www.saxonica.com/">
    403403      <link rel="schema.dct" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
    404404      <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F.">
    405405      <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-latest">
    406       <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-11-12">
     406      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-12-01">
    407407      <meta name="dct.abstract" content="HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field, but points out that it is not part of the HTTP/1.1 Standard. This specification takes over the definition and registration of Content-Disposition, as used in HTTP, and clarifies internationalization aspects.">
    408408      <meta name="description" content="HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field, but points out that it is not part of the HTTP/1.1 Standard. This specification takes over the definition and registration of Content-Disposition, as used in HTTP, and clarifies internationalization aspects.">
     
    422422               <td class="left">Updates: <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved)
    423423               </td>
    424                <td class="right">November 12, 2010</td>
     424               <td class="right">December 1, 2010</td>
    425425            </tr>
    426426            <tr>
     
    429429            </tr>
    430430            <tr>
    431                <td class="left">Expires: May 16, 2011</td>
     431               <td class="left">Expires: June 4, 2011</td>
    432432               <td class="right"></td>
    433433            </tr>
     
    458458         in progress”.
    459459      </p>
    460       <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2011.</p>
     460      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2011.</p>
    461461      <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
    462462      <p>Copyright © 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
     
    656656                     filename="EURO rates";
    657657                     filename*=utf-8''<b>%e2%82%ac</b>%20rates
    658 </pre>  <p>Note: as of November 2010, those user agents that do not support the RFC 5987 encoding ignore "filename*" when it occurs after
     658</pre>  <p>Note: as of December 2010, those user agents that do not support the RFC 5987 encoding ignore "filename*" when it occurs after
    659659         "filename". Unfortunately, some user agents that do support RFC 5987 do pick the "filename" rather than the "filename*" parameter
    660660         when it occurs first; it is expected that this situation is going to improve soon.
     
    823823      <p id="rfc.section.C.3.p.2">As with the approaches above, this is not interoperable and furthermore risks misinterpreting the actual value.</p>
    824824      <h2 id="rfc.section.C.4"><a href="#rfc.section.C.4">C.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="alternatives.implementations" href="#alternatives.implementations">Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a></h2>
    825       <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.1">Unfortunately, as of November 2010, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231 and 5987, nor any of the alternate approaches
     825      <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.1">Unfortunately, as of December 2010, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231 and 5987, nor any of the alternate approaches
    826826         discussed above was implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification recommends the approach defined in RFC 5987, which
    827827         at least has the advantage of actually being specified properly.
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.