On Sun, 19 Sep 2021, Jim Klimov wrote:
Hello all, Roger's point about ISO vs. RFC "original" spec accessibility sounds valid, since most of the ISO 8601 descriptions I've seen were re-tells - in wiki, date-parsing tools/libs docs, etc. Used it for years and did not realize :)I revised and logged some thoughts at https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/pull/1076 and intend to clarify this in our text like "time/date representations that satisfy both RFC 3389 and ISO 8601 standards, following these examples: ..." -- would this be reasonable, Roger?
Hello Jim, If we have examples of what NUT should do in the cases NUT meets, and they satisfy both RFC 3339 and ISO 8601 then that would be perfect. Roger
PS: Its RFC 3339 and not RFC 3389. My error. PS2: The ISO now charge CHF 158 for ISO 8601 part 1 and CHF 178 for part 2.
_______________________________________________ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
