- From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:45:26 +1000
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
It really seems like, given that we are debating this now, that Deprecation can use SF-Date in whatever form we decide. I know that folks in HTTPAPI leaned more toward not doing that, but we should - as an institution - have a low tolerance for that sort of divergence. On Thu, Jun 16, 2022, at 17:42, Mark Nottingham wrote: > 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 07:45:52 UTC