- From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:50:42 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Julian Reschke wrote: > The thing called "rfc1123-date" isn't really the format defined by RFC 1123. > See: > > "However, the preferred format is a fixed-length subset of that defined by > [RFC1123]:" -- Ah right. I read that sentense but wasn't sure how to interpret that, but no I see. > Do we need to expand this sentence? It would've helped me when I looked for clarifications on this, so if that is any guidance... But I'll admit I haven't looked into this much deeper so I don't know what other details in the format that isn't strictly adhering to RFC822/RFC1123, so I can't really suggest any particular wording at this point. -- / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Monday, 11 October 2010 12:51:17 UTC