RE: creationdate format from Jim Whitehead on 1997-12-26 (w3c-dist-auth@w3.org from October to December 1997)

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 15:41:49 -0800
To: "'Jim Davis'" <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>, "'WEBDAV WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Cc: "Yaron Goland (E-mail)" <yarong@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <01BD122E.314457C0.ejw@ics.uci.edu>

Jim,

The rationale for using the ISO8601 date format was a strong feeling on the 
Design Team (Yaron was the main proponent, as I recall) that it is a 
superior time format.  Unfortunately, I don't recall any further details, 
though perhaps Yaron can shed some light on this.

- Jim

On Tuesday, December 16, 1997 1:17 PM, Jim Davis 
[SMTP:jdavis@parc.xerox.com] wrote:
> Why does creationdate (13.1) mandate use of ISO8601 format instead of RFC
> 1123 which is the prefered date/time format for HTTP 1.1, as stated in 
RFC
> 2068, section 3.3.1
>
> Also, can someone provide an example of an ISO 8601 format?  The RFC 1123
> example from HTTP 1.1 is "Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT".

Received on Friday, 26 December 1997 21:47:49 UTC