Re: [PATCH] libwww 5.48 HTTP::Date

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Derek J. Balling: "Re: Timeout Issue on 5.6.0"
• Previous message: Gisle Aas: "Re: Timeout Issue on 5.6.0"
• In reply to: Sander van Zoest: "Re: [PATCH] libwww 5.48 HTTP::Date"

Sander van Zoest <sander@covalent.net> writes:

> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Derek J. Balling wrote:
> 
> > Silly question, how would you "behave" if the last two fields were
> > conflicting: e.g. Tue, 1 Aug 2000 11:50:28 -0400 (PDT)
> > Not that I think parsing that format is a bad idea, but just that how 
> > to handle bad data should be defined going into it. :)
> 
> I am not really sure how you would determine which would be the "correct"
> one,  but I would favor for the ISO number value.

Agree.  Things inside () in email headers are generally just comments
and should be ignored.

> I guess, if you wanted to, you could throw an error or return undef if 
> PDT doesn't match the ISO number value. Granted this would require
> Time::Zone to make the comparison. On systems without Time::Zone you 
> could simply ignore it.

Let's just always ignore it.

Regards,
Gisle

• Next message: Derek J. Balling: "Re: Timeout Issue on 5.6.0"
• Previous message: Gisle Aas: "Re: Timeout Issue on 5.6.0"
• In reply to: Sander van Zoest: "Re: [PATCH] libwww 5.48 HTTP::Date"