Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
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.
Interestingly, I was going to point the list to the W3C spec that is
basically the same format, just less formally defined:
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime
I most certainly think it should be its own Format module so that the
parser can die on a valid ISO8601 date that is invalid in RFC3339
Writing the module would not be a problem for any experienced DateTimer.
I don't think it makes sense to bundle it with ISO8601 as it's only
relationship is that it happens to be a subset of the ISO8601 rules. It
is it's own format, and I'd prefer to have it in its own distribution in
order to make it clear that it is a valid, independent, format.
Cheers!
Rick Measham
