----- Forwarded message from Michael G Schwern via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
From: Michael G Schwern via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:36:24 -0400
To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
Subject: Re: [rt.cpan.org #23307] YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS not a valid datetime
Queue: DateTime-Format-ISO8601
Ticket <URL: http://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=23307 >
Joshua Hoblitt via RT wrote:
> <URL: http://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=23307 >
>
> I haven't given RFC 3339 an in depth study but it appears to be a
> significant simplification of ISO 8601:2000. As you note, it's not
> really just a subset either as not all valid RFC 3339 formats are valid
> ISO 8601 formats because of the time & date separator relaxation. It's
> also not clear to me if independent date or time formats are allowed.
> The ABNF is incorrect in that it doesn't allow for the "space" separator
> in place of "T".
I noted that, too. All of it's examples are full date times with the T
separator.
The TAP datetime format gets around this by explicitly stating those
assumptions in it's grammar.
tap_datetime = rfc_3339_date " " rfc_3339_time |
rfc_3339_date |
rfc_3339_time |
rfc_3339_datetime
rfc_3339_date = As RFC 3339 section 5.6 "full-date"
rfc_3339_time = As RFC 3339 section 5.6 "full-time"
rfc_3339_datetime = As RFC 3339 section 5.6 "date-time"
> I would be tempted to make a parser for this RFC live in a new
> namespace, e.g. DateTime::Format::RFC3339, regardless of how much code
> (and tests) are shared. It probably makes sense to bundle it with
> DT:F::ISO8601 as well.
Yeah, that makes sense.
> How urgently do you need this?
Not urgently enough that I haven't gone and written it myself. :) Just
thought I'd note it for the record as this issue keeps popping up.
--
Whip me, beat me, make my code compatible with VMS!
----- End forwarded message -----
pgpLJF0xDpc9n.pgp
Description: PGP signature
