- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:42:24 +1000
- To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Indeed; I could see e.g., browser dev tools automatically presenting a header that it knows is a date in a friendly way. The only potential issue comes up when it's not recognised as such. If we decide not to do this, I'm absolutely fine with it; it just means that it's likely things like Deprecation will continue to use a String for dates, whereas Retrofit will use e.g., Integer. Cheers, > On 16 Jun 2022, at 5:34 pm, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote: > > The resistance is probably the result of wanting to be able to read the header as it appears in logs. I still find this to be challenging with seconds-since-epoch. > > That said, I no longer believe that readable is a requirement for wire formats. Tools can do a lot to cover any shortcomings. > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022, at 16:04, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Personally, I tend to agree with PHK - I think that Integer (or >> Decimal) is adquate and appropriate. >> >> However, some people seem to keep on pushing back on this - I think >> especially for application-focused headers it's more visible. If we're >> going to do something, retrofit is a good opportunity for it, since >> we're defining SF-Date and friends. >> >> Cheers, >> >> >>> On 16 Jun 2022, at 3:46 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: >>> >>> -------- >>> 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. >>> >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2022 07:42:43 UTC