Arguably, the "mutual agreement" would be between Data.prototype.toISOString and Date.prototype.parse which are the only specified producers and consumers of this specific format. But I agree that it is probably better to require the "T". If somebody wants a more readable timestamp it is easy enough for them to replace the "T" with a blank.
Allen >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:es-discuss- >[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Edney >Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 2:21 PM >To: David-Sarah Hopwood >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: stepping on toes with toISOString > >Allen - > >Here's a link to ISO 8601:2004(E): > >http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/4021199/ISO_8601_2004_E.zip?func= >doc.Fetch&nodeid=4021199 > >Section 4.3.2: > >"The character [T] shall be used as time designator to indicate the >start of the representation of the time of day >component in these expressions." > >this is then followed by: > >"NOTE By mutual agreement of the partners in information interchange, >the character [T] may be omitted in >applications where there is no risk of confusing a date and time of >day representation with others defined in this >International Standard." > > >In addition I found IETF RFC3339: > >http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339 > >Section 5.6 > >"NOTE: ISO 8601 defines date and time separated by "T". > Applications using this syntax may choose, for the sake of > readability, to specify a full-date and full-time separated by > (say) a space character." > > >So this leaves us in a bit of a bind. The 'out' for the 'T' provided >in the ISO8601 spec says that 'by mutual agreement of the partners in >information interchange'... (the T can be omitted). > >Unfortunately, I think that's impossible given the nature of the Web. >I could produce an 8601 date without the 'T' in JS, but then transmit >it to any one of hundreds of thousands of servers that are running >software that expects it. There is no way to have 'mutual agreement' >amongst a potentially infinite set of folks using ISO8601. > >Therefore, unfortunately (because I agree with David about readability >and would like to be able to +1 this), I have to give this a -1 and >recommend that we go with the spec 'conservatively' and enforce the 'T'. > >Cheers, > >- Bill > > >On Jul 16, 2009, at 11:17 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: > >> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: >>> Also if Stockton is correct that the T is now optional in the ISO >>> standard, I'd suggest making it optional in ES a well. Or, if >>> optional >>> is too much trouble, forbidding T and requiring a space instead. A >>> small change, but the timestamps are so much nicer without the T! >>> And >>> it would be a shame for ES to get stuck with the T while ISO and >>> everyone who uses it moves away from the T. >> >> +1. With a space instead of the T, the format is actually reasonably >> pleasant to read. >> >> -- >> David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >_______________________________________________ >es-discuss mailing list >[email protected] >https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
