On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 10:25:45AM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> Replying to two emails:
> 
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Klaus Heinz wrote:
> 
> > Alan Barrett wrote:
> > > I like ISO 8601 format: "%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S %z".  (OK, strictly speaking
> > > ISO 8601 wants a literal "T" between the date and the time, but that's 
> > > too ugly for me.)
> > 
> > Using ISO 8601 seems fine. I would vote for using it as is
> > (%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%S %z) but omitting the T would also be acceptable.
> 
> I already adjusted mine to use this (without the "T"). Thanks for the 
> emails about this.
> 
> But now this following email suggests:
> 
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 joerg@britannica.bec.de wrote:
> > Use either of the following formats from the HTTP RFC please :-)
> > (1) Sun, 06 Nov 1994 08:49:37 GMT (from RFC 822)
> > (2) Sun Nov  6 08:49:37 1994 (ANSI ctime(3) format)
> 
> Do you care if we use the format above instead?

Both choices have their merrits, I just wanted to point to existing
formats in the area we deal with. Both RFC 822 and ctime are fixed size
formats which can be parsed quite easily and which are most likely
already used e.g. in the HTTP code of pkg_add. ISO 8601 is nicer when
sorting automatically and is a bit shorter, but arguable less human
friendly.

Joerg