I was thinking about DateTime::Format::ISO8601... unless you have laid
claim to it.
This is the namespace I started on in March but whatever does ISO8601 should go there.
Perhaps one of you should add it to the CVS server as-is and both work
on it?
I haven't worked on this since the
I haven't worked on this since the beginning of April. I believe this is most of
the date specifications - not including the week formats. Week and UTC offset
handling, time formats, and date + time formats are left (actually shouldn't be that
bad). Although I don't remember why I
I will try to have something usable by tomorrow... I made some decent
progress last night.
-ben
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 01:08:13PM +1000, Iain Truskett wrote:
* Ben Bennett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [20 Jun 2003 12:59]:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 06:42:06PM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
* Ben Bennett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [20 Jun 2003 21:57]:
I will try to have something usable by tomorrow... I made
some decent progress last night.
Excellent. May I suggest you don't worry too much about
usable? Once you get it out there (or, rather, in there to
CVS) other people can help work
Ben Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. So ISO8601:2000 defines all sorts of things, some of which
are impossible to distinguish from one another without outside
information:
+yMMDD Extended complete year
+yDDD Extended ordinal day in year
No, these are called expanded, not
On Thursday, June 19, 2003 Jerry Wilcox wrote:
At 4:25 PM +0200 6/19/03, Peter J. Acklam wrote:
Anyway, I see your point, but I don't agree. There is only need
for an agreement when ambiguous formats are used, which is a good
thing since ambiguous date formats are, as everyone here knows, a
big
Well that was always my intention. I plan to allow the caller to
specify what exact rules to use since the spec basically allows very
little unless the parties agree.
However, I think that the default format (if nothing was specified)
should allow for parsing of common ISO8601 formats.
This
John Peacock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I made a very simple attempt at this back in January, I limited myself to
the most basic format:
if ( @date =
( $val =~ /(\d\d\d\d) # year with century
-? # possible hyphen
(\d\d)
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 06:42:06PM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
[...]
When I started writing DateTime::Format::ISO8601 I was using the ordering method.
Although I think it maybe necessary to to use both 1 and 2. Someday I may finish
this module - what name are you planning on using?
I
I don't know if I will manage to finish this thing, it is a bit of a
monster.
Thats what happened to me. :)
-J
--
Ok. So ISO8601:2000 defines all sorts of things, some of which are
impossible to distinguish from one another without outside
information:
+yMMDD Extended complete year
+yDDD Extended ordinal day in year
-YYMM Year and month in implied century
-DDDOrdinal day in implied
The root of the collisions is the arbitrary number of extended digits
(which may be 0, so you could have -0101, now is that the year 102
BC, or January in 2001? The extended formats also collide internally,
i.e. what is the date +1985? Is it a century or a year?
That document is a disaster
12 matches
Mail list logo
