R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> added the comment: I see I didn't think it through far enough.
Given this, it seems that the Atom standard is saying, "if you don't know your actual UTC offset, you can't generate a valid ATOM timestamp". Which sorta makes sense, though you'd think they'd want to accept a -00:00 timestamp since then at least you know when the article was generated/modified, even if you don't know the local time of the poster. And maybe they do, since as someone pointed out -00:00 is a numeric offest... I agree that generalizing the production of custom formats sounds like a better way forward long term. I'm not clear on why you think RFC3339 deserves its own module. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue7584> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
