Re: [Wikitech-l] ResourceLoader timestamp format
I was under the impression that wfUrlencode left :s unescaped - except on IIS - would that not work for the ResourceLoader? Conrad On 30 Sep 2010 23:12, "Neil Kandalgaonkar" wrote: On 9/30/10 2:12 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote: > Does it also allow replacing the separators with whatever you want? If you use a separator for time, ISO 8601:2004 section 3.4.4 says it has to be hyphen for year, month, day, and colon for hour, minute, and second. -- Neil Kandalgaonkar (| ___ Wikitech-l mailing list wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.o... ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] ResourceLoader timestamp format
On 9/30/10 2:12 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote: > Does it also allow replacing the separators with whatever you want? If you use a separator for time, ISO 8601:2004 section 3.4.4 says it has to be hyphen for year, month, day, and colon for hour, minute, and second. -- Neil Kandalgaonkar (| ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] ResourceLoader timestamp format
As of r74042 a new format is supported by wfTimestamp called TS_ISO8601_BASIC. This is being used by ResourceLoader now. Thank you to everyone for contributing your ideas. - Trevor On 9/30/10 2:12 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote: > 2010/9/30 Neil Kandalgaonkar: >> ISO 8601 does not mandate the use of separators within date and time. >> The following are equivalent. >> >> "basic" format: 19850412T101530Z >> "extended" format: 1985-04-12T10:15:30Z >> > Does it also allow replacing the separators with whatever you want? > Colons get urlencoded but dashes are fine, so what about (and I know > I'm stealing this suggestion from /someone/, I just can't remember who > suggested it to me) 1985-04-12T10-15-30Z ? > > Roan Kattouw (Catrope) > > ___ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] ResourceLoader timestamp format
2010/9/30 Neil Kandalgaonkar : > ISO 8601 does not mandate the use of separators within date and time. > The following are equivalent. > > "basic" format: 19850412T101530Z > "extended" format: 1985-04-12T10:15:30Z > Does it also allow replacing the separators with whatever you want? Colons get urlencoded but dashes are fine, so what about (and I know I'm stealing this suggestion from /someone/, I just can't remember who suggested it to me) 1985-04-12T10-15-30Z ? Roan Kattouw (Catrope) ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] ResourceLoader timestamp format
Well, the MediaWiki timestamp string ("19850412101530") is very
similar to the "basic" ISO8601 format ("19850412T101530Z"), the
difference being the use of T as a separator and the Z at the end to
indicate GMT.
I guess I'm a little confused why someone would find "19850412101530" to
be "fairly readable" while also finding "19850412T101530Z" to be "not
very readable".
- Trevor
On 9/30/10 12:56 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote:
>> ISO 8601 does not mandate the use of separators within date and time.
>> The following are equivalent.
>>
>> "basic" format: 19850412T101530Z
>> "extended" format: 1985-04-12T10:15:30Z
> I'm not sure I'd call the "basic" format very readable.
>
> Internally, MediaWiki largely uses "MMDDhhmmss" stored as a string, not
> as a timestamp. I think this is fairly readable personally, but it's
> obviously breaking standards.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] ResourceLoader timestamp format
Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote: > ISO 8601 does not mandate the use of separators within date and time. > The following are equivalent. > > "basic" format: 19850412T101530Z > "extended" format: 1985-04-12T10:15:30Z I'm not sure I'd call the "basic" format very readable. Internally, MediaWiki largely uses "MMDDhhmmss" stored as a string, not as a timestamp. I think this is fairly readable personally, but it's obviously breaking standards. MZMcBride ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] ResourceLoader timestamp format
ISO 8601 does not mandate the use of separators within date and time. The following are equivalent. "basic" format: 19850412T101530Z "extended" format: 1985-04-12T10:15:30Z On 9/30/10 12:30 PM, Trevor Parscal wrote: >Early on in the requirements stage of ResourceLoader development we > decided to use ISO8601 as the format for representing timestamps in > URLs. This was chosen for it's legibility, conformance to a standard and > ease of generation. However this was somewhat of an oversight since the > timestamp "1970-01-01T00:00:00Z" gets URL encoded to be > "1970-01-01T00%3A00%3A00Z" which leaves something to be desired. Also, > generating this format in JavaScript requires sending a extra 220 bytes > (minified and compressed). > > So, before we seal the deal on using 8601, I would like to collect some > ideas about alternatives which would ideally... > > * Be legible in a URL > * Conform to a well-defined/well-known standard > * Be easy to generate from a unix timestamp in both PHP and JavaScript > > Proposals wanted. > > - Trevor > > ___ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l -- Neil Kandalgaonkar (| ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] ResourceLoader timestamp format
Early on in the requirements stage of ResourceLoader development we decided to use ISO8601 as the format for representing timestamps in URLs. This was chosen for it's legibility, conformance to a standard and ease of generation. However this was somewhat of an oversight since the timestamp "1970-01-01T00:00:00Z" gets URL encoded to be "1970-01-01T00%3A00%3A00Z" which leaves something to be desired. Also, generating this format in JavaScript requires sending a extra 220 bytes (minified and compressed). So, before we seal the deal on using 8601, I would like to collect some ideas about alternatives which would ideally... * Be legible in a URL * Conform to a well-defined/well-known standard * Be easy to generate from a unix timestamp in both PHP and JavaScript Proposals wanted. - Trevor ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
