Ignore:
Timestamp:
Feb 1, 2011, 1:13:55 AM (9 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@…
Message:

Upgrade to latest version of rfc2629.xslt and xml2rfc.tcl; bump up document dates

Location:
draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest
Files:
2 edited

Legend:

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

    r1099 r1103  
    356356  }
    357357  @top-right {
    358        content: "January 2011";
     358       content: "February 2011";
    359359  }
    360360  @top-center {
     
    365365  }
    366366  @bottom-center {
    367        content: "Standards Track";
     367       content: "Expires August 5, 2011";
    368368  }
    369369  @bottom-right {
     
    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 1.537, 2010-12-30 14:21:59, XSLT vendor: SAXON 8.9 from Saxonica http://www.saxonica.com/">
     402      <meta name="generator" content="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629.xslt, Revision 1.540, 2011-01-10 09:27:20, 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="2011-01-01">
     406      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-02-01">
    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">January 1, 2011</td>
     424               <td class="right">February 1, 2011</td>
    425425            </tr>
    426426            <tr>
     
    429429            </tr>
    430430            <tr>
    431                <td class="left">Expires: July 5, 2011</td>
     431               <td class="left">Expires: August 5, 2011</td>
    432432               <td class="right"></td>
    433433            </tr>
     
    458458         in progress”.
    459459      </p>
    460       <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on July 5, 2011.</p>
     460      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on August 5, 2011.</p>
    461461      <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
    462462      <p>Copyright © 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
     
    657657                     filename="EURO rates";
    658658                     filename*=utf-8''<b>%e2%82%ac</b>%20rates
    659 </pre>  <p>Note: as of January 2011, those user agents that do not support the RFC 5987 encoding ignore "filename*" when it occurs after
     659</pre>  <p>Note: as of February 2011, those user agents that do not support the RFC 5987 encoding ignore "filename*" when it occurs after
    660660         "filename". Unfortunately, some user agents that do support RFC 5987 do pick the "filename" rather than the "filename*" parameter
    661661         when it occurs first; it is expected that this situation is going to improve soon.
     
    824824      <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>
    825825      <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>
    826       <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.1">Unfortunately, as of January 2011, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231 and 5987, nor any of the alternate approaches
     826      <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.1">Unfortunately, as of February 2011, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231 and 5987, nor any of the alternate approaches
    827827         discussed above was implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification recommends the approach defined in RFC 5987, which
    828828         at least has the advantage of actually being specified properly.
  • draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.xml

    r1099 r1103  
    4242  </author>
    4343
    44   <date month="January" year="2011"/>
     44  <date month="February" year="2011"/>
    4545  <workgroup>HTTPbis Working Group</workgroup>
    4646 
     
    328328</artwork>
    329329<postamble>
    330   Note: as of January 2011, those user agents that do not support the RFC 5987
     330  Note: as of February 2011, those user agents that do not support the RFC 5987
    331331  encoding ignore "filename*" when it occurs after "filename". Unfortunately,
    332332  some user agents that do support RFC 5987 do pick the "filename" rather
     
    742742<section title="Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)" anchor="alternatives.implementations">
    743743<t>
    744   Unfortunately, as of January 2011, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231
     744  Unfortunately, as of February 2011, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231
    745745  and 5987, nor any of the alternate approaches discussed above was
    746746  implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification recommends the approach
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.