# PEP 833: Freezing the HTML simple repository API
**URL:** \
**Category:** Standards\
**Created:** [April 21, 2026, 2:43pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-833-freezing-the-html-simple-repository-api/107051 "2026-04-21T14:43:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 23
**Author:**  [@notatallshaw](https://discuss.python.org/u/notatallshaw)\
**Post date:** [April 24, 2026, 5:34pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-833-freezing-the-html-simple-repository-api/107051/23 "2026-04-24T17:34:07Z")
> [@duncathan](#):
>
> don’t really see why `upload-time` warrants a mention in this PEP, honestly. If it’s significant enough to warrant inclusion in the HTML representation, then surely it could still be added after this PEP - the text says that it SHOULD NOT be modified
Because I believe that this missing field, and associated use case, means the specification SHOULD be modified, and while that it is still the case I am -1 on a PEP that says it SHOULD NOT be modified.
> [@pf\_moore](#):
>
> You can point users to PEP 700 for the reason. It has nothing to do with PEP 833 - excluding the new fields from the HTML format was a deliberate decision in PEP 700, and reversing that decision would require a change to PEP 700.
I spoke to @dstufft, out of band and before this latest thread, on why PEP 700 excluded `upload-time` from HTML, because were I part of the discussion at the time I would have pushed for it, as I asked for the field to exist in the [PEP 691 discussion](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-691-json-based-simple-api-for-python-package-indexes/15553/4) as I saw it as a useful field for resolver and installer clients.
My understanding from him, and you or he can correct me if I’m misinterpreting this, is that PEP 700 was aiming to get users who were using the non-standard PyPI JSON API to use a standards based JSON API. The motivation was not specifically to add support for features that common installers, say pip, would want to use.
> [@pf\_moore](#):
>
> The appearance of the cooldown use case changes the picture completely, and I consider extending PEP 700 to support the HTML index format to be a perfectly reasonable proposal.
I am happy to propose a clarification, but [like konsti](https://discuss.python.org/t/implementation-of-swapped-marker-order/107060/22) I do not currently have the capacity to take on the burden of writing a shepherding a PEP through acceptance.
> [@pf\_moore](#):
>
> Someone needs to formally make that proposal, of course. But it’s independent of PEP 833, which only says that PEPs _SHOULD_ not change the HTML format, not that they _MUST_ not.
It directly relates because this use case means, IMO, the HTML format SHOULD change, in direct violation of the text of this PEP.
---
_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-833-freezing-the-html-simple-repository-api/107051)._