I assume this is related to the unique identifier generated on each ECMA
The issue here is that this goes against the requirements of the spec.
What exactly is being proposed here?
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net>
> On Mon 2015-02-16 18:17:53 -0500, Michael McGlothlin wrote:
> > I'd always store time in epochs. Seconds since 1/1/1970 GMT.
> > The use of textual date strings instead of a epochs is one of the
> > worst things I've seen from the C# way of doing things. I had often
> > wondered why so many programs could have so much trouble with handling
> > dates and times correctly..
> I agree that silly standards like RFC 822 timestamps are crazy and
> should not be used anywhere we can avoid them.
> However, the ISO-8601 date/timestamp format is both human- and
> machine-parseable, whereas most humans can't look at a UNIX epoch
> timestamp and know even whether it's in the past or the future.
> That said, i really care more about reproducibility than i do about any
> particular timestamp format. if folks are fine with UNIX epoch
> timestamps and with the environment variable interfacfe Jo proposes,
> i'll be happy with that. Is this something that could be adopted
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
Reproducible-builds mailing list