Re: OT: Re: Less is more

> > > I'm not arguing that the RFC822 date format is sensible and good.
> > nor, really, am I.  but if we're going to change it, we should change 
> > it to something that will actually interoperate better  - not just 
> > something which will produce a different set of interoperability 
> > problems.
> Can't disagree with that. And I think the way to accomplish this is to 
> have a rule that given a date/time/timezone, there must be only a 
> single valid representation of that time in the format we end up 
> selecting.
I don't disagree that this is a good idea.  But if you look at the 
kinds of malformed dates that are out there, most are not malformed 
because the programmer tried to use some legal variant of the date 
syntax and failed to get it right - they're malformed because the 
programmer failed to even try to get it right.