URL:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?23767>
Summary: ISO-8601 and "date"
Project: GNU Core Utilities
Submitted by: None
Submitted on: Friday 07/04/2008 at 22:11 UTC
Category: None
Severity: 3 - Normal
Item Group: None
Status: None
Privacy: Public
Assigned to: None
Open/Closed: Open
Discussion Lock: Any
_______________________________________________________
Details:
Sorry if I'm being dense, this seems to be an issue that comes up with some
regularity.
The ISO 8601 format for date/time specifications is well-known; in
particular, it is described reasonably fully on wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601. RFC 2822 and RFC 3339, by contrast, do
not even have Wikipedia articles, not even stubs.
It is also, I admit, the only reasonably compact format for specifying a
time/date format that I know of. "20080704T215923Z" is still somewhat
human-readable, unlikely to be mistaken for a local time because the "T" and
"Z" are exotic enough to stop people just making assumptions about how to
interpret the string, the format allows alphabetic sorting ...
In short, I don't see what's wrong with it and I'm interminably confused by
the fact that it's not date's default format. But it isn't even supported as
an input format for -d! There is an --iso-8601 option, but it's
undocumented!
What's up with this? Is it some sort of politically motivated campaign? If
there actually were any harm in understanding, at least, the week-number-free
"T"-separated date/time string with a "Z" suffix, shouldn't that at least be
documented somewhere?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?23767>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
