Changeset 1145 for draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp

Timestamp:

01/03/11 09:24:49 (12 years ago)

Author:

julian.reschke@…

Message:

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

Location:

draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest

Files:

• draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.html (modified) (11 diffs)
• draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.xml (modified) (2 diffs)

draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.html

@@ -94 +94 @@
   margin-left: 2em;
   margin-right: 2em;
+}
+ol.la {
+  list-style-type: lower-alpha;
+}
+ol.ua {
+  list-style-type: upper-alpha;
 }
 ol p {
@@ -356 +362 @@
   } 
   @top-right {
-       content: "February 2011"; 
+       content: "March 2011"; 
   } 
   @top-center {
@@ -365 +371 @@
   } 
   @bottom-center {
-       content: "Expires August 30, 2011"; 
+       content: "Expires September 2, 2011"; 
   } 
   @bottom-right {
@@ -402 +408 @@
       <link rel="Appendix" title="D Advice on Generating Content-Disposition Header Fields" href="#rfc.section.D">
       <link rel="Appendix" title="E Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)" href="#rfc.section.E">
-      <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/">
+      <meta name="generator" content="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629.xslt, Revision 1.543, 2011-02-18 21:03:40, XSLT vendor: SAXON 8.9 from Saxonica http://www.saxonica.com/">
       <link rel="schema.dct" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/">
       <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F.">
       <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-latest">
-      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-02-26">
+      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-03-01">
       <meta name="dct.abstract" content="RFC 2616 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.">
       <meta name="description" content="RFC 2616 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.">
@@ -424 +430 @@
                <td class="left">Updates: <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved)
                </td>
-               <td class="right">February 26, 2011</td>
+               <td class="right">March 1, 2011</td>
             </tr>
             <tr>
@@ -431 +437 @@
             </tr>
             <tr>
-               <td class="left">Expires: August 30, 2011</td>
+               <td class="left">Expires: September 2, 2011</td>
                <td class="right"></td>
             </tr>
@@ -449 +455 @@
          list is at &lt;<a href="http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/query?component=content-disp">http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/query?component=content-disp</a>&gt; and related documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at &lt;<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/</a>&gt;.
       </p>  
-      <p>The changes in this draft are summarized in <a href="#changes.since.05" title="Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-05">Appendix&nbsp;E.10</a>.
+      <p>The changes in this draft are summarized in <a href="#changes.since.06" title="Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06">Appendix&nbsp;E.11</a>.
       </p> 
       <h1><a id="rfc.status" href="#rfc.status">Status of This Memo</a></h1>
@@ -460 +466 @@
          in progress”.
       </p>
-      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on August 30, 2011.</p>
+      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2011.</p>
       <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
       <p>Copyright © 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
@@ -518 +524 @@
                <li>E.9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.04">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-04</a></li>
                <li>E.10&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.05">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-05</a></li>
+               <li>E.11&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.since.06">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06</a></li>
             </ul>
          </li>
@@ -839 +846 @@
       <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>
       <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>
-      <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
-         discussed above was implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification recommends the approach defined in RFC 5987, which
-         at least has the advantage of actually being specified properly.
+      <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.1">Unfortunately, as of March 2011, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231 and 5987, nor any of the alternate approaches discussed
+         above was implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification recommends the approach defined in RFC 5987, which at least
+         has the advantage of actually being specified properly.
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.2">The table below shows the implementation support for the various approaches:</p>
@@ -1011 +1018 @@
       </p>
       <p id="rfc.section.E.10.p.2">Added appendix "Advice on Generating Content-Disposition Header Fields".</p>
+      <h2 id="rfc.section.E.11"><a href="#rfc.section.E.11">E.11</a>&nbsp;<a id="changes.since.06" href="#changes.since.06">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06</a></h2>
+      <p id="rfc.section.E.11.p.1">None yet.</p>
       <h1 id="rfc.index"><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></h1>
       <p class="noprint"><a href="#rfc.index.C">C</a> <a href="#rfc.index.H">H</a> <a href="#rfc.index.I">I</a> <a href="#rfc.index.R">R</a> 

draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.xml

@@ -42 +42 @@
   </author>
 
-  <date month="February" year="2011"/>
+  <date month="March" year="2011"/>
   <workgroup>HTTPbis Working Group</workgroup>
   
@@ -764 +764 @@
 <section title="Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)" anchor="alternatives.implementations">
 <t>
-  Unfortunately, as of February 2011, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231
+  Unfortunately, as of March 2011, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231
   and 5987, nor any of the alternate approaches discussed above was
   implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification recommends the approach