On 2023-08-10 13:35, Kyzer Davis (kydavis) wrote: > > Got it, > > If the powers that be decided the GMT format was not the path forward > for whatever reason; be it performance, parse-ability, etc… > > Then I believe we have to amend this doc to use the format designated > by the peer WG to stay in line with those standards and be compliant. > I agree, if structured fields adopts unix timestamps, I think this should too (and I also am with you that I would have rather seen IMF-fixdate[1] for text-based protocols until there's a binary serialization for structured fields.) [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#http.date
Received on Thursday, 24 August 2023 20:48:30 UTC