Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag for RFC 3339 full-date values

["Richter, Jörg" <[e-mail]>]

(Replying to more than one message here)

Carsten Bormann: 
> Is that a good way forward?

I am fine with the suggested procedure. 

> What I like about Mike’s draft is that he references RFC 3339, which already is 
> an established specification for how to write dates textually

ISO 8601 also defines this format for dates. It is mentioned in the "Detailed Semantics" 
section of my proposal.

Mike Jones:
> I'm fine merging Jörg's numeric date tag into my draft, provided that the result is 
> not a polymorphic tag, in which the value could be either a number or a string.  
> We should allocate separate tags for string date and numeric date, just as tags 
> 0 and 1 are different, and not polymorphic.

I've got the impression that using a polymorphic tag would be no major problem.
We can even specify that decoders might only support one representation of the tag.
I think it would have the same effect if a decoder supports only one of the two tags.
But either way I would have no objections to using two tags.

Laurence Lundblade:
> I’d suggest the numeric date be restricted to integers. No floats, bignums,
> decimal fractions… 

Yes, that was the plan. Only major types 0 and 1. 

> Fractions of days can be represented by tag 0 or tag 1 using
> hours, minutes, seconds. 64-bit integer counts of days are large enough.

This I don't understand. The proposal only handles whole days as one number.

Another thing to consider:
We should mention that this tag(s) use the proleptic Gregorian calendar. So that 
dates before the Gregorian calendar have a unique semantics.

- Jörg