#47 closed editorial (fixed)
inconsistency in date format explanation
Reported by: | mnot@… | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Milestone: | 01 | |
Component: | p1-messaging | Severity: | |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
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.
Change History (4)
comment:1 Changed 15 years ago by mnot@…
comment:2 Changed 15 years ago by fielding@…
- Component set to messaging
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
Fixed in [82]
comment:3 Changed 15 years ago by julian.reschke@…
Not sure it's ok to drop RFC1036 from the references section...
comment:4 Changed 15 years ago by fielding@…
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
Proposal: "The second format is in common use, but is based on the obsolete RFC1036 date format [12] and lacks a four-digit year."