- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 05:46:00 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- Mark Nottingham writes: > I'd love to hear what people think about this issue: > https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2162 I've added this comment: I see no mention of fractional seconds ? I think we need to ponder that, if the goal is (eventual) convergence for all timestamps in HTTP ? Considering how much effort we spend on speeding up HTTP, I find the "human readable" argument utterly bogus. Only a very tiny fraction of these timestamps are ever read by humans, and most are in a context where software trivially can render the number in 8601 format if so desired. In terms of efficiency, I will concede that, in a HTTP context, it is almost always possible to perform the necessary calculations and comparisons on raw ISO-8601 timestamps, without resorting to the full calendrical conversions, but once all the necessary paranoia is included, I doubt it is an optimization. My preference is sf-decimal seconds since epoch, (and this is largely why sf-decimal has three decimals in the first place), because it gives us fast processing, good compression and millisecond resolution. PS: A Twitter poll with only 40 respondents, carried out on the first monday after new-years ? Really ?! -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2022 05:46:14 UTC