{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2p","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1xqshkqv2g7uea4xzqwvmgjcz7u8vfavw6aazs999v0azsv3w7u3qpymc2p","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-04\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:41 AM, kjj \u003cbitcoin-devel at jerviss.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Matt Whitlock wrote:\n\u003e \u003e The creation date in your BIP header has the wrong format. It should be\n\u003e 01-04-2014, per BIP 1.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e At first, I thought this was a second April Fool's joke, but then I\n\u003e looked and saw that all of the BIPs really do use this format.  As far\n\u003e as I can tell, we are using this insane format because RFC 822 predates\n\u003e ISO 8601 by half a decade.\n\u003e\n\u003e Since we don't have half a gajillion mail servers to patch, we could, if\n\u003e we desired, adopt a sensible date format here.  The cost to the\n\u003e community would be minimal, with probably not more than a half dozen\n\u003e people needing to update scripts.  It could even be as simple as one guy\n\u003e running sed s/parseabomination/parsedate/g\n\u003e\n\nBIPs were based on Python PIPs, PIPs use this same ordering but spell out\nthe month like '1-Oct-2000'. This is slightly more readable than our format.\n\nhttp://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0453/\n\nBut to make it more confusing they have two different date conventions\nwithin the header (one for the modified date, and one for the created date).\n\nPersonally I'd prefer to standardize on ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) dates as well.\n\nFeel free to submit a pull against bips/bips that changes around the dates.\n\nWladimir\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140404/70a5278c/attachment.html\u003e"}