[uf-dev] The correct format of a ISO date

[Michael Kaply]

microformats-dev-bounces at microformats.org wrote on 05/23/2008 04:18:27 AM:

> Examples of date formats I think are OK
>
> 2008-01-21
> 20080121
> 2007-05-01T11:30
> 2007-05-01 11:30
> 20070501 11:30

I thought the T was required?

> 20070501T1130
> 2007-05-01T11:30:15
> 20070501T113015
> 2007-05-01T11:30Z-08:00

Definitely invalid - Z and offset are mutually exclusive

> 2007-05-01T11:30-08:00
> 2007-05-01T11:30+08:00
> 2007-05-01T11:30Z08:00
> 20070501T1130Z-0800
> 2007-05-01T11:30Z

Definitely invalid - Z and offset are mutually exclusive

> 2007-05
> 07-05-01 (equals 2007-05-01)
> 070501  (equals 2007-05-01)

I sincerely hope noone would ever actually do anything like this. I'm not
going to handle it in Operator.
I can't believe they even allow this. It's a specification. So they can say
"Always have the year"

I hate ambiguity in dates and I hate parsing ISO dates.

> The last one is interesting
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 ...
> "Although the standard allows both the YYYY-MM-DD and YYYYMMDD formats
> for complete calendar date representations, if the day [DD] is omitted
> then only the YYYY-MM format is allowed. By disallowing dates of the
> form YYYYMM, the standard avoids confusion with the truncated
> representation YYMMDD (still often used)."

Mike Kaply
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-dev/attachments/20080523/2e98ab99/attachment-0001.html