IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A structured format for dates?

Glenn Strauss <gs-lists-ietf-http-wg@gluelogic.com> Thu, 16 June 2022 04:23 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 382E9C15AACF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 21:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.661
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Pviik9XEgsNa for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 21:23:04 -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 BD8AFC1595E6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 21:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1o1gyY-0000N2-RB for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 04:19:22 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 04:19:22 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1o1gyY-0000N2-RB@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <gs-lists-ietf-http-wg@gluelogic.com>) id 1o1gyX-0000MH-6J for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 04:19:21 +0000
Received: from smtp1.atof.net ([52.86.233.228]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <gs-lists-ietf-http-wg@gluelogic.com>) id 1o1gyT-00060L-GU for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 04:19:21 +0000
X-Spam-Language: en
X-Spam-Relay-Country:
X-Spam-DCC: B=; R=smtp1.atof.net 1102; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
X-Spam-RBL:
X-Spam-PYZOR: Reported 0 times.
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:18:56 -0400
From: Glenn Strauss <gs-lists-ietf-http-wg@gluelogic.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <YqqvMFbszynHQ0l9@xps13>
References: <8C9C4A5C-45DB-43C0-9769-2A7510854AB1@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8C9C4A5C-45DB-43C0-9769-2A7510854AB1@mnot.net>
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=52.86.233.228; envelope-from=gs-lists-ietf-http-wg@gluelogic.com; helo=smtp1.atof.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1o1gyT-00060L-GU 134212acd528e9519825a6131de38848
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: A structured format for dates?
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/YqqvMFbszynHQ0l9@xps13>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40111
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>

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 11:54:26AM +1000, Mark Nottingham 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?

+1 for ISO 8601 date format with 24-hour time notation (RFC 3339)
   (without the '@' ?)

Preference: restrict SF-Date to UTC and strftime format "%FT%TZ"
   (written as "%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ" on ancient strftime impl, or MS)

Cheers, Glenn

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status