W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Issue 163, was: Meaning of invalid but well-formed dates

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 12:45:26 +0200
Message-ID: <4A06B046.8090105@gmx.de>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
CC: 'Geoffrey Sneddon' <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...
> Will do that when the patch gets applied. In the meantime I have 
> re-arranged stuff a bit more so that it's more clear what belongs to 
> which format, and which ones are preferred/obsolete; and also moved the 
> other note to the end of the paragraph. See 
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/163/163.diff> 
> and full text below:
> ...

I have applied the proposed change with 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/580> (and also got 
rid of subsection 3.2.1).

The ticket stays open, in case we find out how to defined the semantics 
for RFC850 dates, or decide on other related changes.

BR, Julian
Received on Sunday, 10 May 2009 10:46:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:02 GMT