On 2022-04-13 We 09:38, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Minor doc patch to replace with latest RFC number
>
> Intended for PG15
Idea is fine, but
- data, as specified in <ulink
url="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159">RFC
- 7159</ulink>. Such data can also be stored as <type>text</type>, but
+ data, as specified in <ulink
url="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8259">RFC
+ 8259</ulink>, which supercedes the earlier <acronym>RFC</acronym> 7159.
+ Such data can also be stored as <type>text</type>, but
Do we need to mention the obsoleting of RFC7159? Anyone who cares enough
can see that by looking at the RFC - it mentions what it obsoletes.
I haven't checked that anything that changed in RFC8259 affects us. I
doubt it would but I guess we should double check.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
