RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 5 records.

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 2387, "The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type", August 1998

Source of RFC: mhtml (app)

Errata ID: 5048

Status: Reported
Type: Technical

Reported By: Adrian Kennard
Date Reported: 2017-06-22

Section 3.4 says:

related-param   := [ ";" "start" "=" cid ]
                        [ ";" "start-info"  "="
                           ( cid-list / value ) ]
                        [ ";" "type"  "=" type "/" subtype ]
                        ; order independent

It should say:

Unsure of best way to express this, but this syntax does not seem
to allow for the values to be in quotes. e.g. type="text/html"
rather than type=text/html

Notes:

Basically, the examples all have quotes around the values, e.g. type="Application/X-FixedRecord" rather than type=Application/X-FixedRecord

It appears that Yahoo email cannot accept type=text/html as per "syntax" in 3.4, but will accept type="text/html" which is consistent with the examples

The examples in the RFC currently do not comply with the RFC.

Status: Held for Document Update (4)

RFC 2387, "The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type", August 1998

Source of RFC: mhtml (app)

Errata ID: 3386

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported By: Thomas Lane
Date Reported: 2012-10-18
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba

Section 5.1 says:

The example below, uses a single data block.

     Content-Type: Multipart/Related; boundary=example-1
             start="<950120.aaCC@XIson.com>";
             type="Application/X-FixedRecord"
             start-info="-o ps"

It should say:

The example below, uses a single data block.

     Content-Type: Multipart/Related; boundary=example-1;
             start="<950120.aaCC@XIson.com>";
             type="Application/X-FixedRecord";
             start-info="-o ps"

<OR>

The example below, uses a single data block.

     Content-Type: Multipart/Related
             ;boundary=example-1
             ;start="<950120.aaCC@XIson.com>"
             ;type="Application/X-FixedRecord"
             ;start-info="-o ps"

Notes:

Missing ";"s in parameter list.


RFC 2045 says:

content := "Content-Type" ":" type "/" subtype
*(";" parameter)

Errata ID: 3387

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported By: Thomas Lane
Date Reported: 2012-10-18
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba

Section 5.2 says:

Content-Type: Multipart/Related; boundary=example-2;
             start="<950118.AEBH@XIson.com>"
             type="Text/x-Okie"

It should say:

Content-Type: Multipart/Related; boundary=example-2;
             start="<950118.AEBH@XIson.com>";
             type="Text/x-Okie"

<OR>

Content-Type: Multipart/Related
              ;boundary=example-2
              ;start="<950118.AEBH@XIson.com>"
              ;type="Text/x-Okie"

Notes:

Another missing ';' [see erratum for Section 5.1].

Errata ID: 3389

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Thomas Lane
Date Reported: 2012-10-18
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba

Section 6 says:

MIME User Agents that do recognize Multipart/Related entities but are
unable to process the given type should give the user the option of
suppressing the entire Multipart/Related body part shall be.

It should say:

MIME User Agents that do recognize Multipart/Related entities but are
unable to process the given type SHOULD give the user the option of
suppressing the entire Multipart/Related [some grammatically well-formed English].

Notes:

Capitalize the keyword SHOULD.

the entire Multipart/Related body part? the entire Multipart/Related body? all the Multipart/Related content? the entire Multipart/Related body, or just the particular body part of unrecognized type? I'm not sure what this was originally intended to say, just that what's there is a typo.

Errata ID: 3574

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Robert Lee
Date Reported: 2013-03-29
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba
Date Held: 2013-03-29

Section 6.4 says:

   It is suggested that MUAs that use configuration mechanisms, see
   [CFG] for an example, refer to Multipart/Related as Multi-
   part/Related/<type>, were <type> is the value of the "type"
   parameter.

It should say:

   It is suggested that MUAs that use configuration mechanisms
   refer to Multipart/Related as Multipart/Related/<type>,
   where <type> is the value of the "type" parameter. See [CFG]
   for examples of configuration mechanism usage in MUAs.

Notes:

Changed "were" to "where". Also reworded the "CFG" reference to be easier to read.

=== Verifier notes ===
Minor typos and insignificant rewording -- goes into "held for document update".

Report New Errata



Search RFCs
Advanced Search
×