- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2022 12:25:51 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Based on discussion at 114, I've updated the PR. See: https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/mnot/2162/draft-ietf-httpbis-retrofit.html#name-the-date-structured-type Thoughts? Also, I see that Martin is wondering whether this should be a separate document. Any opinions there? It's very short... Cheers, > On 21 Jun 2022, at 4:44 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > Just a heads-up: > > I've linked a PR from the issue, to give people an idea of one way this might look. > > 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/
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2022 02:26:07 UTC