Closed msporny closed 1 year ago
Didn't VCDM 1 also specify that the milliseconds couldn't be included as it adds a tracking vector? Is that still the case or did I make this up entirely?
Didn't VCDM 1 also specify that the milliseconds couldn't be included as it adds a tracking vector? Is that still the case or did I make this up entirely?
I vaguely remember something saying that somewhere :) -- so, either it's a shared delusion, or the text exists/existed somewhere. The signature (if it's not an unlinkable one) is more of a tracking vector, so I don't think this is a concern.
We did say that second precision was preferred because it allows good compression in CBOR-LD. The second you add fractions of a second, your byte storage requirements go up a bit... but again, we don't want to prevent people from being able to specify fractions of a second.
IOW, I think we're ok here.
Normative, multiple reviews, no changes requested, no objections, merging.
This PR attempts to align the way datetime values are used in this specification with the way they are used in the vc-data-model, namely, ensuring that a
dateTimeStamp
value is used (which ensures that a timezone is specified when expressing a datetime).VC v1.0 and v1.1 didn't do this and there were a few instances where systems were creating datetime values that did not include a timezone (and thus were ambiguous because interpreting the time was done using the local timezone... and if a datetime was set in one timezone, there could be a misinterpretation of the datetime value when interpreted in another timezone).
Preview | Diff