[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bug in date: --rfc-3339=seconds and --rfc-3339=ns options do *not* o

From: Romain Lenglet
Subject: Re: bug in date: --rfc-3339=seconds and --rfc-3339=ns options do *not* output timestamps in RFC 3339 format
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 13:26:01 +0900
User-agent: KMail/1.9.1

Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Romain Lenglet on 5/3/2006 12:47 AM:
> > Hi,
> >
> > RFC 3339 makes it *mandatory* to separate the date and time
> > with a "T" in timestamps. Cf. section 5.6 of RFC 3339,
> > describing the timestamp syntax in ABNF:
> >
> > date-time       = full-date "T" full-time
> Hmm.  Are you sure about that?  My understanding was that we
> deprecated -I for being non-compliant with ISO 8601 because
> RFC 3339 explicitly requires that the 'T' NOT appear in the
> date.  Reread section 5.6 in RFC 3339, which permits
> implementations to avoid 'T'.

I know, the "NOTE" is ambiguous in section 5.6. But the ABNF 
specifications are not. And the comments in Appendix A are not, 

> See the threads here, where the 
> --rfc-3339 option was discussed, and later added:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2005-07/msg001
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2005-09/msg000

I was aware of this thread. Thanks.

> If you need the "T", for now you can rely on the undocumented
> --iso-8601 option.
> > I am not providing you a patch, since I don't want to go
> > through the administrative burden of copyright transfer for
> > so little, but here are the correct date formats for the RFC
> > 3339 options:
> If the patch is less than 10 lines, it is considered trivial
> and can be applied without copyright assignment.

OK. Here is one patch of two lines. ;-)


Attachment: date-rfc3339_2006-05-04.patch
Description: Text Data

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]