4 ms·
>why not just post the RFC instead? I read your link to the RFC before I read the Mozilla article. It was not clear that the RFC was an April fools joke until
by hoorayimhelping 8y ago
>why not just post the RFC instead?
I read your link to the RFC before I read the Mozilla article. It was not clear that the RFC was an April fools joke until after I read the Mozilla bit that highlighted it being a gag. After that, the date at the top of the RFC became obvious.
- peterburkimsher 8y agoIs the date in the status code itself? If the authors were American, then they would write the 1st of April 1998 as 4/1/1998, which could be truncated to 4/1/8.
- petee 8y ago> Thus, there is a strong, dark, rich requirement for a protocol designed espressoly for the brewing of coffee. Third sentence probably should have been a warning flag. I think nearly every paragraph has word play