LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  March 2011

DATETIME March 2011

Subject:

Sv: Re: [DATETIME] Last Call for Use Cases

From:

Karin Bredenberg <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:43:11 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (73 lines)

I dont think its a bug. It's not using the standard and as simple as
that. 

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.

Karin

>>> Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]> 2011-03-10 01:34 >>>
Hello!

> > 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
used 
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
would 
be encouraged to write 1985W15 and when it would be encouraged to write

1985-04-08/P7D instead.

> so slap me upside the head
I have absolutely no reason to use any kind of violence! On the
contrary, 
it seems that we could agree about the fact that there may be no
reasons 
to have a feature whose usefulness is (as of today) not obvious and
which 
definition is built on a coarse approximation.

My message was that I consider it is good practice to try to be aware
of 
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) 
specs.

Different (small) shortcommings and inconsistencies which, one by one,
may 
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
the 
context of this spec. But: If I had an example, it would be a use
case.

Regards!

Saašha,

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
March 2014
September 2013
May 2013
February 2013
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager