Brent Laabs via RT wrote: >There is no mismatch between docs and implementation (see >https://github.com/perl6/doc/commit/4ee960fa6ec96437b088337851b19878f194d709 >).
Ah, the mismatch has been resolved by that change, in response to this ticket. That would make this ticket resolved, not rejected. >Your interpretation of Postel's law is incorrect, too. While the spec >is clear, other implementations of the spec may have minor mistakes. This argument might carry some weight if the code were actually written to accept a well-defined set of non ISO 8601 inputs that had been identified as likely mistaken outputs from other code. But it's not: the range of out-of-spec inputs that is accepted arises merely from the bugs that happened to creep into the attempt at validation. The use of non-ASCII digits, in particular, is a very unlikely mistake to make in output code. They're accepted because the \d regexp term makes it easy to mistakenly accept them on input. >Input validation is a useful feature, but you can hardly call a >parenthetical an advertisement of that feature "An invalid input string throws an exception" was not parenthetical, it was (and remains) quite prominent at the start of a paragraph. It's true that the statement of the permitted format wasn't (and isn't) really clear, but the parenthetical reference to ISO 8601 was the most solid part of it, and so seemed a helpful clarification. It did not come across as obiter dicta. It would be ridiculous to deny significance to this sort of clarifying clause merely because it is syntactically contained in parentheses. -zefram
