- From: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2022 05:51:45 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On Sep 9, 2022, at 12:22 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > As editor of the spec, my current impression is that more people support the integer representation. Given that this is a predict-the-future-were-not-sure kind of question, I think that's probably the right direction to go, unless there are arguments or information that haven't surfaced yet. > > Anyone want to say anything else? Tommy, would you like to do a consensus call, or a hum at 115? If not, I'll just merge now. I don’t think we need to wait for 115, necessarily. My impression is that no one has a “this will be totally broken!” level of concern either way. If anyone cannot abide with this resolution, please speak up with your reasons. If we don’t hear any such objections within a few days, Mark please go ahead and merge. Thanks, Tommy > > 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 Friday, 9 September 2022 12:52:15 UTC