> Support RFC3339[1] is relative easy.
But it's not enough, as folks are asking for the ability to specify durations.
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> > It's not a huge step to support full blown ISO 8601 (which has a few more
> > alternatives to specify time intervals *). I like the idea.
>
> No, it *is* a huge step. There's a reason why W3C XML schema language
> (XSD), not known for bein
> Sorry, I was unclear. What I meant was that it's not a huge step from the XSD
> to full blown ISO 8601.
No, sorry, *I* was unclear. I think it is a huge step to go full-blown. E.g.,
all the missing fields and the 'w' duration.
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.opens
In message
<3a1728b8c014426bb3e557832d275...@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> on Tue,
6 Sep 2016 19:14:38 +, "Salz, Rich" said:
rsalz>
rsalz> > It's not a huge step to support full blown ISO 8601 (which has a few
more
rsalz> > alternatives to specify time intervals *). I like the ide
> It's not a huge step to support full blown ISO 8601 (which has a few more
> alternatives to specify time intervals *). I like the idea.
No, it *is* a huge step. There's a reason why W3C XML schema language (XSD),
not known for being lightweight, profiled the ISO standard.
--
openssl-users
In message
<490f88be6dcf4d5c9baa3f3b5e4c4...@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> on Tue,
6 Sep 2016 17:11:01 +, "Salz, Rich" said:
rsalz> I am thinking of standardizing the syntax for dates, times, and
rsalz> durations used by the applications in the next releases, based on
rsalz> http://w