Ned wrote:
not all systems run their clocks in UTC. (In fact the machine I'm
using right now to enter this message uses a local time clock.
Same here. I know the issue, in a httpd-script it forced me to
use HTTP/1.0 and -0000, because HTTP/1.1 does not permit stupid
servers. Just knowing that it's "local time" isn't the same as
knowing the correct timezone.
[2359 vs. 9959]
You could limit it to say 23 hours. With that the syntax
would more obviously indicate that it's actually about hh:mm
and not 9999 minutes.
Again I'm with Pete - I see no reason for such a restriction.
It could help casual future readers, as you described them here:
| In most cases it isn't possible to communicate with the
| responsible parties so there's no way to know why they did it.
| But when it is and they open their mouths to respond what
| usually emerges is a loud sucking sound resulting from the
| total vacuum of salient information between their ears.
| It is nothing short of stunning how many people think they
| know how to implement a protocol (the specific protocol is
| irrelevant) just from a cursory examination of example protocol
| exchanges from some random book they flipped through one day at
| a local bookstore. And no amount of added prose, or more precise
| ABNF, or anything else we do is going to change this. In fact by
| making our specifications longer we if anything make the problem
| slightly worse, not better.
Maybe they would get the idea of 2359. Or maybe not :-)
Frank