I dont think its a bug. It's not using the standard and as simple as
So my point with saying C# gives you <date>2011-02-28 15:34:08</date>
is that not all programmers are aware of the fact that this is not
according to standard and wont validate if the format of the XML-element
is a datetime.
Writing an XSLT fix can be done but its better to construct the
datetime on your own when you make the value in C# by using date and
time and combine them with the letter "T".
So some education is perhaps also needed.
No point in discussing this any more, I just wanted to point out that
this is out here.
>>> Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]> 2011-03-10 01:34 >>>
> > it ends uplike this:
> > <date>2011-02-28 15:34:08</date>
> > so there are no T present.
> How some programming language handles
> these details is irrelevant. We should
> stick to ISO 8601.
I also consider that it is good to try to stick to ISO 8601. If some
specific non-standard-compliant software has a bug and forgets the T in
its outputs, it should be quite easy to write an XSLT to fix that
afterwards. Maybe someone on the list already has such an XSLT to be
in different contexts.
> * #206 Calendar week e.g. 1985W15 (week 15 of 1985)
I would suggest to add a little note about the circumstances when it
be encouraged to write 1985W15 and when it would be encouraged to write
> so slap me upside the head
I have absolutely no reason to use any kind of violence! On the
it seems that we could agree about the fact that there may be no
to have a feature whose usefulness is (as of today) not obvious and
definition is built on a coarse approximation.
My message was that I consider it is good practice to try to be aware
the limitations of our specs, even when those limitations may seem
distant. Awareness helps to write a better documentation and good
documentation today will help for a better future awareness of these
limitations, which helps us to avoid inconsistencies in our (future)
Different (small) shortcommings and inconsistencies which, one by one,
seem negligible can sometimes be far less negligible if they happen to
occur together. Maybe you wonder whether I have an example for that in
context of this spec. But: If I had an example, it would be a use