Is it worth pointing out that RFC3339[1] exists to specify a stricter standard than ISO8601?
[1]: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3339.txt -- Keith Cirkel On 29 April 2013 19:10, Jason Orendorff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Note that ISO 8601 says that formatting simplifications > > such as leaving out the T is permitted with mutual agreement between the > > parties interchanging a data. It isn't clear who the other party is that > > Ecma-262 could reach such an agreement with. > > I think I disagree with the premise that a careful reading of the > vaguer parts of ISO 8601 is likely to help. > > ES and HTML each specify a date-time syntax already (each with a > *non-normative* reference to ISO 8601). I'm just suggesting that they > specify the same one, for consistency and interoperability. They're > nearly identical already. > > >> Can ES adopt these changes? It seems to me HTML and JS might as well > >> have the same rules for this sort of thing. > > > > Or maybe we should both just stick to a valid subset of ISO 8601. > > Do you mean: achieve consistency by having HTML retract its extensions > to ISO 8601? I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed. > > > Like I said above, I think it would be fine for there to be a spec. that > > adds additional browser implementation spec. format extensions for > > Date.parse. > > Creating a new and separate standard over a few minor date-time syntax > tweaks sounds like overkill. > > -j > _______________________________________________ > 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
