Open calmh opened 6 months ago
Currently, there is no special handling for timestamps. A timestamp field in a message is marshalled as seconds and nanoseconds:
created_at { seconds: 1703153845 nanos: 392723000 }
For human consumption I think it would be nicer if timestamps were represented as strings:
created_at: "2023-12-21T10:17:25.392723Z"
Presumably, unmarshalling could support both variants.
The prototext package follows the protocol buffer Text Format Language Specification. And that specification does not provide any special handling for well-known types.
prototext
Currently, there is no special handling for timestamps. A timestamp field in a message is marshalled as seconds and nanoseconds:
For human consumption I think it would be nicer if timestamps were represented as strings:
Presumably, unmarshalling could support both variants.