You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
@misc{rfc6749,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 6749,
howpublished = {RFC 6749},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC6749},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749},
author = {Dick Hardt},
title = {{The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework}},
pagetotal = 76,
year = 2012,
month = oct,
abstract = {The OAuth 2.0 authorization framework enables a third-party application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service, either on behalf of a resource owner by orchestrating an approval interaction between the resource owner and the HTTP service, or by allowing the third-party application to obtain access on its own behalf. This specification replaces and obsoletes the OAuth 1.0 protocol described in RFC 5849. {[}STANDARDS-TRACK{]}},
}
Workaround
My current workaround is to either manually change the month to its numerical representation (i.e. month = 10 instead of month = oct), or to add the following lines at the top of my bibtex file:
Note
This issue was originally posted in getzola/zola#2367
Issue
When loading a BibTeX file that has a non-numeric
month
field, the parsing fails. Using a three letter abbreviation for the month seems to be at least somewhat common practice.Here is a BibTeX as provided by the IETF for an RFC (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6749/bibtex/)
Workaround
My current workaround is to either manually change the month to its numerical representation (i.e.
month = 10
instead ofmonth = oct
), or to add the following lines at the top of my bibtex file:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: