Missed the actual link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601
Sergey On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Andy > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Andrzej Michalec < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > Just FYI, I'm updating FiqlParser for the date format be configurable >> (via >> > context properties) because we can expect dates in all sort of formats, >> >> Sergey, FIQL RFC draft explicitly states the only date format which is XML >> Schema dateTime >> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#dateTime). > > > Sorry, I actually missed that fact. > > >> Nevertheless >> I am ok with such relaxation and customized date formats as long as we >> keep >> defaults as in spec. >> >> > Sounds good, I did a simple update where the defaults are the ones you were > using originally. > I think I can add some code later on to do the validation. I've looked at > [1] and it seems ISO-8601 is lax enough about the possible variations. My > motivation was to make it simpler to use date-based queries, example, I have > a test with two log files, created and closed at different dates, say > 2011-01-22 and 2011-01-23. So having 'date=lt=2011-01-23' is a simple way to > check all the records before 2011-01-23. But I agree - we'll need to enforce > it... > > > >> > Hope it won't interfere with your refactoring (the hiding of query()), >> >> I am fine, I am going to do that this weekend, so I will update to head >> and >> move on. >> >> I left query() unchanged, only added another constructor and then the > optional properties are passed to PartialConditions and also made visible to > children... > > thanks, Sergey > > cheers, >> -andy. >> >>
