IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A structured format for dates?

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 09 September 2022 07:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AB3C14CE22 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 00:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.06
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.06 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=UwihRdkS; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Cui4krln
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eKpxLz18ZWr4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 00:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FB3CC14CF05 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 00:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1oWYHe-008TTk-1w for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 07:18:38 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2022 07:18:38 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1oWYHe-008TTk-1w@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1oWYHc-008TOa-Hg for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 07:18:36 +0000
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1oWYHa-00CCt2-3Q for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2022 07:18:36 +0000
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0A755C0129; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 03:18:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 09 Sep 2022 03:18:21 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1662707901; x= 1662794301; bh=eg/C2gHotKVLLZOV3ga8dMOTPdvy2WTQCCIXa2CH7CY=; b=U wihRdkSveJtJ6c7maa3wLVuPtRRZqUbcgt03YmGxqiFybZTUy6nKd9nZ02xkLGD+ U7kYLyN1NvkM3lgS9bAhySP84NIXfvmJ6R3UZnBFqgJhvWdlE9NL8B//uAPFH1FE 36mTyVW2arpybHjnWYCeiJeSrANfUBF7agMYQT7IJt7QD7NkavF7FkREvR2Y8nWi qpz8SHP1JiMHZdAGjpFXN3ln3pURqSLXeQoccxg8lnrB3M9sRmlQTKQ/vAFvva8q FJPVV8naJomNH4M6h+znsa4GVDhfa0sxWSsPFzci6uNVd5tjKdHM+z2ve4Zz5mjy KCfMBfG2pl7Oe5SwXS39A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t=1662707901; x= 1662794301; bh=eg/C2gHotKVLLZOV3ga8dMOTPdvy2WTQCCIXa2CH7CY=; b=C ui4krlne4DY+rRnyt5N+hWKxZ7kcyKLjup9Rrf6JYTJZ3qBuysBvN5Sq6qZGMGRa UoFQDQ6BeZ3N04KucPscE8eUNR2WGUBilmAU/pe93305+EjkIiNF6s/XrDeBGCiP Pau+Jh5maXnQtlLg+JHirpXTWiMi4NH8Eu80c8dXaMm6V4W8O6i66n65+BiO+OhA 42FkZ1eUTNfzCWJHkoM5nhkT7yUtFq9jgWLglUhC9XwKjvIjqs6RbD/o0T7IwMGv zxgtfd4kxngCUgk8N2yorJ68FyF8BHAvp7XOkAYQih1gaiTjbGEKFn89BsOgnElU /1PriduoPD42P4G7A1Nxg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:vegaY5S8HZe1Yi2EpGD4fow6EOgWa8JQ9xj2PmgfP3pY9y7uyrgLcw> <xme:vegaYyxffIc6w6SURFlGq8xoVfpPYLuaLl2ioIyddW8tOS-9rscif2HJ8kGQlD6Cd 7GfSYNbAHNq-uldvA>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:vegaY-1lZklFqyrXh0QVmPXAPcgjGO3KWjTL1mwe3RwiICaBAyiumVJBfea2nBuzcraLWKzIKurp0G1GgSyzRhJxa788_UR5KkKf5ncPv87j9Epn3yJQtTOF>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfedtgedguddulecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjffevgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgr rhhkucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpedvfeehvdeigeejteeihffftdfgiefhvedtveduteffheduhfefleehiedu ffekkeenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhmpdhmnhhothdrnhgvthenucevlh hushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmnhhothesmhhn ohhtrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:vegaYxDAiwHbKmUIjnSVlJr1LynhPvTXrGOVt1liriQ-fYB06sm7Ow> <xmx:vegaYyjrEmI24I4Bawy_eVfhPAxLv65lBLl_VF4N16kQ2A0yxCo6RA> <xmx:vegaY1qsGrsmxnnMyVsH97L_3PpLwpT-aJmRjNII1hBf1djc1zzwcQ> <xmx:vegaY6JzDyY0qaiusytzGIE_NGO32MvmjWfqXIAsePPCvaBqr7bh0g>
Feedback-ID: ie6694242:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 9 Sep 2022 03:18:20 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <8C9C4A5C-45DB-43C0-9769-2A7510854AB1@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2022 17:18:17 +1000
Cc: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A9AE1653-1E17-4E13-838F-83CF65773EB4@mnot.net>
References: <8C9C4A5C-45DB-43C0-9769-2A7510854AB1@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.29; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=out5-smtp.messagingengine.com
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (address=mnot@mnot.net domain=mnot.net), signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (address=mnot@mnot.net domain=messagingengine.com), signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1oWYHa-00CCt2-3Q 82bbc0a0a4ec3f2e59407849830ea49e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: A structured format for dates?
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/A9AE1653-1E17-4E13-838F-83CF65773EB4@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40380
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

As editor of the spec, my current impression is that more people support the integer representation. Given that this is a predict-the-future-were-not-sure kind of question, I think that's probably the right direction to go, unless there are arguments or information that haven't surfaced yet.

Anyone want to say anything else? Tommy, would you like to do a consensus call, or a hum at 115? If not, I'll just merge now.

Cheers,


> On 16 Jun 2022, at 11:54 am, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 
> I'd love to hear what people think about this issue:
>  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2162
> 
> In a nutshell, the idea is to define a new structured type for dates, so that instead of e.g.,
> 
>  SF-Date: 784072177
> 
> we'd have:
> 
>  SF-Date: @1994-11-06T08:49:37Z 
> 
> ...as the textual representation. Obviously, if we ever do binary structured fields, its representation there could be more efficient.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email