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

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 UTC