[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
Re: bug in date: --rfc-3339=seconds and --rfc-3339=ns options do *not* output timestamps in RFC 3339 format
Thu, 4 May 2006 13:26:01 +0900
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:
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. ;-)
Description: Text Data