<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:41 AM, kjj <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-devel@jerviss.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="">Matt Whitlock wrote:<br>
> The creation date in your BIP header has the wrong format. It should be 01-04-2014, per BIP 1.<br>
><br>
</div>At first, I thought this was a second April Fool's joke, but then I<br>
looked and saw that all of the BIPs really do use this format. As far<br>
as I can tell, we are using this insane format because RFC 822 predates<br>
ISO 8601 by half a decade.<br>
<br>
Since we don't have half a gajillion mail servers to patch, we could, if<br>
we desired, adopt a sensible date format here. The cost to the<br>
community would be minimal, with probably not more than a half dozen<br>
people needing to update scripts. It could even be as simple as one guy<br>
running sed s/parseabomination/parsedate/g<br></blockquote><div><br></div>BIPs were based on Python PIPs, PIPs use this same ordering but spell out the month like '1-Oct-2000'. This is slightly more readable than our format.<br>
<div><br><a href="http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0453/">http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0453/</a><br><br></div><div>But to make it more confusing they have two different date conventions within the header (one for the modified date, and one for the created date).<br>
</div><div><br><div>Personally I'd prefer to standardize on ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) dates as well.<br><br></div><div>Feel free to submit a pull against bips/bips that changes around the dates.<br></div><br>Wladimir<br></div>
</div><br></div></div>