At 12:58 PM 10/20/1999 +0200, Andreas Siegert wrote:
>Quoting Kriss Andsten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at
12:14:11AM +0000:
>> > > Also the lack of timeZONE info in the timestamp is a common gripe. It
>> > > might be worthwhile to add a short field with this info i.e:
>> > > 991019_12:54:02_GMT+8.
>>
>> Question? What's wrong with sending in UTC, and munging into whatever on
>> the recieving end? (Anything that makes a payload going over the network
>> longer without a rather good reason is -evil-)
>
>YES!
>YYYYMMMDDhhmmss should be small enough, and even readable enough.
I'd be inclined to go with two Ms and use a numeric month. Not sure what
we're going to do about the Y10K issue, though. Timezone should probably
be available as an optional field in the message, but in its absence
timestamps should be interpreted as if they were in UTC.
Bob
