@movq@www.uninformativ.de I reckon section numbers are not really needed for articles. But if you number them, the anchors should probably not contain the section number, just the title. Especially for articles that may receive updates.

It’s probably another story for specifications. They’re kinda fixed and thus I found it useful in the past to include the section numbers in the anchors, so they show up in URLs when linking to specific sections. W3C RFCs only include the numbering in the anchors. This makes URLs fairly short, but it would be also nice to directly see what kind of section that URL actually links to.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Yeah, that would also be fine with me. I certainly do like the “arbitrary” in your comment.

While writing the article, I also thought about something like that:

date := time.Date(2026, 6, 19,
    17, 0, 0, 0, time.UTC)

Or possibly:

date := time.Date(
    2026, 6, 19,
    17, 0, 0, 0, time.UTC,
)

But it’s four lines for a damn timestamp. I also contemplated whether a comment acting as a separator is all that’s needed:

date := time.Date(2026, 6, 19, /**/ 17, 0, 0, 0, time.UTC)

I might like that the most. Not entirely sure yet. It kinda feels like a hack, but still a little elegant. Add your comment on top and we’re golden. Maybe?

I deliberately excluded them as this only distracted from the points I wanted to make. And I also realized that this example was just not ideal at all. Perhaps I should add them nevertheless?

If I ever invented a programming language, a much more human readable timestamp representation of some sort, RFC 3339 or very close to that would be part of that language. Something along the lines of /pattern/ for regexes in certain languages.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Great to be asked for feedback! I just noticed that the first wcwidth version was derived from Markus Kuhn’s C code. I came across him in my ISO 8601 and RFC 3339 endeavors the other day. https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html What a surprise. :-)

Aha, yesterday’s newly added support for LC_TIME to render localized timestamps also broke the feed parsing with my LANG=de_DE.UTF-8 and LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 environment. :-)

Atom feeds make use of RFC 3339 timestamps. They are first converted into RFC 882 timestamp representation, which is the one that RSS feeds use. However, this conversion now results in localized RFC 882 timestamps, which cannot be parsed into Unix timestamp numbers via curl_getdate(…). I bet that it doesn’t know about the localization at all and expects English month and weekday names. Looking at its docs, I reckon that function was selected because of its myriad of supported timestamp formats: https://curl.se/libcurl/c/curl_getdate.html RFC 3339 is not included, though, hence the transformation up front.

The intermediate Item objects in the parser domain use std::string for the timestamp representation. This isn’t all that silly, because Newsboat supports all sorts of different feed formats with different timestamp formats. These RFC 883 timestamps are centrally parsed into time_t.

Speaking of time: It’s time to go to bed after this late bug hunting fun. :-)

DynIP – Dynamic DNS with RFC 2136, IPv6, DNSSEC, and BYOD
Article URL: https://dynip.dev/

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48276363

Points: 8

# Comments: 3 ⌘ Read more

PEP 819: JSON Package Metadata
This PEP proposes introducing JSON encoded core metadata and wheel file format metadata files in Python packages. Python package metadata (“core metadata”) was first defined in PEP 241 to use RFC 822 email headers to encode information about packages. This was reasonable in 2001; email messages were the only widely used, standardized text format that had a parser in the standard library. However, issues with handling different encodings, differing handling of line breaks, and other differences between i … ⌘ Read more

I kind of hate conventional commit messages: https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/#summary

but I am loving reading RFC 2119: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

All my newly added test cases failed, that movq thankfully provided in https://git.mills.io/yarnsocial/twtxt.dev/pulls/28#issuecomment-20801 for the draft of the twt hash v2 extension. The first error was easy to see in the diff. The hashes were way too long. You’ve already guessed it, I had cut the hash from the twelfth character towards the end instead of taking the first twelve characters: hash[12:] instead of hash[:12].

After fixing this rookie mistake, the tests still all failed. Hmmm. Did I still cut the wrong twelve characters? :-? I even checked the Go reference implementation in the document itself. But it read basically the same as mine. Strange, what the heck is going on here?

Turns out that my vim replacements to transform the Python code into Go code butchered all the URLs. ;-) The order of operations matters. I first replaced the equals with colons for the subtest struct fields and then wanted to transform the RFC 3339 timestamp strings to time.Date(…) calls. So, I replaced the colons in the time with commas and spaces. Hence, my URLs then also all read https, //example.com/twtxt.txt.

But that was it. All test green. \o/

A tour of upcoming RFCs for the Hare programming language
Comments ⌘ Read more

RFC 5081: Using OpenPGP Keys for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authentication
Comments ⌘ Read more

Nobody writes emails by hand using RFC 5322 anymore, nor do we manually send them through telnet and SMTP commands. The days of crafting emails in raw format and dialing into servers are long gone. Modern email clients and services handle it all seamlessly in the background, making email easier than ever to send and receive—without needing to understand the protocols or formats behind it! #Email #SMTP #RFC #Automation

OpenSSL 3.5.0 released
Version\
3.5.0 of OpenSSL has been released. This release adds support for
server-side QUIC ( RFC 9000), a
new configuration option ( no-tls-deprecated-ec) that disables
support for TLS groups deprecated in RFC 8422, and more. ⌘ Read more

**(#lnrgahq) @eapl.me@eapl.me@eapl.me@eapl.me What’s with your client not using the proper syntax for mentions?

$ bat 'https://twtxt.net/twt/ ...**
[@eapl.me _@eapl.me_](https://twtxt.net/external?uri=https://eapl.me/twtxt.txt&nick=eapl.me) [@eapl.me _@eapl.me_](https://twtxt.net/external?uri=https://eapl.me/tw.txt&nick=eapl.me) What’s with your client not using the proper syntax for mentions?

$ bat ‘https://twtxt.net/twt/lnrgahq’ | jq ‘.text’
”(#4xaabhq) thanks @prologic!
@bender the idea of the RFC was to reach an agreement on a … ⌘ Read more

thanks @prologic!
@bender the idea of the RFC was to reach an agreement on a difficult problem, receiving proposals, and the voting is a simple count to gauge the sentiment of “is this a problem worth to be fixed?, are we committed to implement a change in our clients?”

But that’s a fair point. What do the community expect? What do y’all expect?

[$] Multiple memory classes for address-space isolation
Brendan Jackman has been working to try to get ahead of the next hardware CPU
vulnerability
before it gets discovered. In January, he posted the second version of
a patch set that introduces
address-space isolation (ASI) as a way of
preventing future CPU vulnerabilities from leaking important
information. The core concept is to ensure that data that is not currently
ne … ⌘ Read more

TIL that RFC means Request For Comments

Hi everyone,
I’ve drafted a Request for Comments (RFC) to improve how threads work in twtxt:
https://git.mills.io/yarnsocial/twtxt.dev/issues/18

I’d love your feedback! Please share your thoughts on anything that could be better explained, check if the proposed dates work for everyone, and I invite you to join the discussion…

HTTP 代理的原理和實現
HTTP 代理可以說是每個開發者都繞不開的工具。幾乎每天都會使用，但你真的瞭解 HTTP 代理的原理嗎？ 說明：這裏討論的 HTTP 代理是指 HTTP Proxy Server，具體是正向 HTTP 代理服務端的原理和實現。想了解 HTTP 代理的原理，最嚴謹的方法是閱讀 RFC 文檔，但這同時也是最困難的方式。今天，我將介紹一種更直觀的學習技巧。從名字上就可以看出，HTTP 代理基於 HTT ⌘ Read more

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org agree on the HTTP stuff. I mean we could mention that for optimization see RFC yadda yadda should be followed for caching. but not have it part of the spec proper.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org agree on the HTTP stuff. I mean we could mention that for optimization see RFC yadda yadda should be followed for caching. but not have it part of the spec proper.

お知らせ：JPCERT/CC Eyes「RFC 9116「security.txt」の紹介（2022年8月）の続報」 ⌘ Read more

@prologic@twtxt.net Unfortunately the RFC’s are a bit light in this regard. While it makes mention of different kinds of accounts like mailto: or status services.. it never combines them. It does make mention of using redirects to forward a request to other webfingers to provide additional detail.

I am kinda partial to using salty:acct:me@sour.is, yarn:acct:xuu@txt.sour.is, mailto:me@sour.is that could redirect to a specific service. and a parent account acct:me@sour.is that would reference them in some way. either in properties or aliases.

@prologic@twtxt.net Unfortunately the RFC’s are a bit light in this regard. While it makes mention of different kinds of accounts like mailto: or status services.. it never combines them. It does make mention of using redirects to forward a request to other webfingers to provide additional detail.

I am kinda partial to using salty:acct:me@sour.is, yarn:acct:xuu@txt.sour.is, mailto:me@sour.is that could redirect to a specific service. and a parent account acct:me@sour.is that would reference them in some way. either in properties or aliases.

I’m planning to include “gemini tinylogs” on the twtxt page on Antenna. As soon as I have the time and energy for it. (https://codeberg.org/bacardi55/gemini-tinylog-rfc)

@bml@twtxt.net Yup, several. My favorite is RFC 1149, another that’s since been implemented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_Request_for_Comments

interesting RFC dated April 1st, 1998: Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0):

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2324

looking at the date this was published, i think the authors originally meant this as an apil’s fool joke/prank.

funny because now we have IOTs and this is somewhat a reality today :P

Peter Saint-Andre: RFC 8838: Trickle ICE ⌘ Read more…

@xuu@txt.sour.is Not too happy with WKD’s use of CNAME over SRV for discovery of openpgpkey.. That breaks using SNI pretty quick. I suppose it was setup as a temporary workaround anyhow in the RFC..

@xuu@txt.sour.is Not too happy with WKD’s use of CNAME over SRV for discovery of openpgpkey.. That breaks using SNI pretty quick. I suppose it was setup as a temporary workaround anyhow in the RFC..

RFC-61 — 365 RFCs https://write.as/365-rfcs/rfc-61

Update: scans of early RFCs — 365 RFCs https://write.as/365-rfcs/update-scans-of-early-rfcs

RFC-19 — 365 RFCs https://write.as/365-rfcs/rfc-19

RFC-5 — 365 RFCs https://write.as/365-rfcs/rfc-5

RFC-2 — 365 RFCs https://write.as/365-rfcs/rfc-2

RFC-1 — 365 RFCs https://write.as/365-rfcs/rfc-1

mnot’s blog: How to Read an RFC https://www.mnot.net/blog/2018/07/31/read_rfc

RFC 439 - PARRY encounters the DOCTOR https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc439

@kas@enotty.dk The only thing stopping me from implementing webmentions by myself is RFC 5988. Crazy stuff…

@kas@enotty.dk The only thing stopping me from implementing webmentions by myself is RFC 5988. Crazy stuff…

briefly thinking about using RFC 5147 for message identifiers, e.g. https://buckket.org/twtxt_news.txt#line=2