Re: signatures vs sf-date

On 23.01.2023 07:56, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>
>> On 19 Dec 2022, at 9:28 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> This sort of confirms that we really need to figure out what the
>> expectations for users of SF (be it implementations or specifications)
>> are - is support of sf-date an extension you need to opt in somehow?
>
> Yes - by emitting or consuming a field that uses it.

When I invoke an SF parser - how do I signal to the parser that I want
support for sf-date?

Best regards, Julian