- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:52:52 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29496 --- Comment #9 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> --- (In reply to Liam R E Quin from comment #8) > 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 Probably not needed, as my proposal is a partial reversion of a change following the accepted proposal in comment#1 and the editorial license mentioned in comment#3. In fact, I think it is closer to the original decision of comment#1. In other words, we remove something that was accidentally added. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2016 00:52:59 UTC