Bug#569174: [PATCH] Correction of RFC number for date format -- bug #569174.
On 02.06.2010 14:59, Bill Allombert wrote:
What is the diffrence between RFC5322 and RFC2822 time format ?
RFC 5322 was only released in 2008, so the standard that packages
actually follow is clearly RFC2822.
I would prefer if we keep a reference to RFC2822 because is is
more well known than RFC5322
The 'date' utility denotes this format under 'RFC 2822':
The option is named --rfc-2822 and the documentation list
RFC 2822.
There are some differences (usually backward compatible).
The main difference I see is: RFC 5322 doesn't permit comments
before and after month name, so really an insignificant change
for Debian.
OTOH we don'twant to have the full range of options, e.g. the tree RFCs
permits the 2 digit year (check obs-year), it permits to leave off the
day-of-week, it permits to use the "obsolete" time zones, etc.
So I propose to define "date" field explicitly:
====
The date has the following format (compatible and with the same semantic
of RFC 2822 and RFC 5322):
day-of-week, dd month yyyy hh:mm:ss +zzzz
where:
- day-of week is one of: Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri, Sat, Sun
- dd is 2 digist (01-31)
- month is one of: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct,
Nov, Dec
- yyyy is 4 digits (e.g. 2010)
- hh is 2 digits (00-24)
- mm is 2 digits (00-59)
- ss is 2 digits (00-61)
- +zzzz (or -zzzz) is a sign (+ or 0) followed by 4 digits.
====
ciao
cate
Reply to: