somehow this got passed on & the "third edition" was never finished. it's a shame because the older version is less accurate/updated.
I'm going to try to finish it up in the next few weeks, so people have something reliable to go by until the ID is finished. On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Anthony Bryan<[email protected]> wrote: > ugh, what's wrong? > > I've tried to incorporate all the comments and uploaded new drafts to > http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion/files > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Bram Neijt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think the biggest reason for 3339 becoming the chosen format was >> because XML schema datatypes uses it ( >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#dateTime ) >> >> Looking into this further, I think you might have a point. Just >> checking "new Date('1937-01-01T12:00:27.87+00:20')" fails :-S >> >> Bram >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Nils <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I know that a lot of languages have either rfc 822 or 2822 support, >> > while most are lacking 3339. >> > Javascript, the language of dTa, has support to parse 822 and 2822 and >> > generate 2822, but lacks 3339. >> > While it shouldn't be that hard to roll out some custom implementation >> > I still don't see the advantages of 3339 over e.g. 2822. > > > > > -- > (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ] > )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads > -- (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ] )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metalink Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
