On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:17 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Luca Toscano <toscano.l...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > "The Last-Modified header value '%s' (parsed assuming the GMT timezone) >> > has >> > been replaced with '%s' because considered in the future." >> >> Looks good to me (maybe "(GMT)" only between parentheses?). >> >> The original log message can still be switched to a comment, though ;) > > > I'm not fond of the 'assuming' thing, per RFC2616 it *is* defined as GMT. > > (parsed as GMT, as required) > > might be a way to phrase that? Other words that came to mind were > 'as defined', 'per spec', etc. > > Showing a value 'datetime (CEST)' (GMT) is unnecessarily confusing.
Hmm, isn't "(CEST)" if there recognized by the parser (so to "correct" the compared epoch)? If so, this looks more like a bad "Last-Modified" than a future one (even if it's the case). (Sorry I didn't follow the discussion about this issue). Anyway, if we can find a timezone string in the header, "(GMT)" alone may be indeed confusing, but so is "parsed as GMT" IMHO. PS: if that has been discussed already, feel free to ignore me, I'll go looking at the thread :)
