Closed msporny closed 4 months ago
This PR duplicates PR #295 with slightly different language. Which do we want?
Which do we want?
Crap, missed that @PatStLouis already raised a PR for this issue. We don't have the concept of a "consumer" in the spec, we might need to align it to a conformance class, which this PR does. @PatStLouis, can you merge some of the language in this PR into your PR, and then we can close this PR?
@msporny I've updated #295 with the text from this PR (#297).
Closing as duplicate of #295.
This PR is an attempt to address issue #294 by fixing inconsistencies on what constitutes a valid time value and what a conformant processor might do when consuming the value. /cc @PatStLouis
Preview | Diff