- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 21:50:32 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29496
Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |liam@w3.org
--- Comment #8 from Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> ---
I don't think it's worth making the change Abel suggests in comment 7. I'd have
to go back and check the RFCs and implementations and data to see if we'd be
rejecting in-use values used by automatically-generated datestamps (the primary
usecase for this function), which I could do but would rather not - people have
implemented what they've implemented at this point I expect, and I don't think
rejecting values because they look odd to us is a good approach.
A note that 130 (for example) is short for 0130 or 01:30 might be helpful.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 21:50:35 UTC