Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Docs: Improve format documentation #963
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Docs: Improve format documentation #963
Changes from all commits
7d45e8b
2b17601
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is not true. Here's a really good comparison: https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @gregsdennis ,
I have two different suggestions for this:
1:
Dates and times are represented in RFC 3339, section 5.6. While RFC 3339 is often considered a subset of the ISO 8601 format, there are important differences between the two. For a detailed comparison, refer to this resource: RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601.
2:
Dates and times are represented in RFC 3339, section 5.6. While RFC 3339 is often seen as a simpler version of the ISO 8601 format, there are some differences. RFC 3339 focuses on a smaller set of date and time formats and has stricter rules. It doesn't include all the features of ISO 8601, like week dates or very long years. For a clear comparison, check this resource: RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601.
What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is 3339 considered a simpler version of 8601? I never thought that. I always thought they were just different. I was actually surprised when I discovered how much they overlap.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
RFC 3339 is a simplified and restricted subset of ISO 8601.
They have some similarities like Both formats support the basic date-time structure using the format
YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS
and some differences like ISO 8601 allows reduced precision in the time format (e.g, only specifying the hour: 14:30) and RFC 3339 requires the fullHH:MM:SS
format.ISO 8601 provides more options than RFC 3339.
So, what should be our conclusion for this? Do you prefer one out of the above two options or you have anything else to add?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have a problem with the word "subset". It's not a subset. There are 3339 formats that 8601 doesn't accept. In the comparison, you can plainly see this. It's not a subset because the 3339 circle does not exist completely within the 8601 circle.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Now you have the opposite problem that "distinct" means there's no overlap. Just say they're separate specs. The RFC is by IETF, and the ISO is by, well, ISO. They're different because they are attempts to standardize dates by two different standardization bodies.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Dates and times are represented in RFC 3339, section 5.6. RFC 3339 and ISO 8601 are standards from different standardization bodies. RFC 3339 is from the IETF and ISO 8601 from the ISO. They are separate date format specifications with overlapping features. RFC 3339 enforces stricter rules and supports certain formats that ISO 8601 does not, while omitting features like week dates and very long years, which are part of ISO 8601. To explore their similarities and differences, refer to: RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601.
I have rephrased it as per your suggestion. I will add the link to IETF, ISO official site and RFC vs ISO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we're getting lost in the weeds here. We should focus on RFC3339 and maybe casually remark that, while it overlaps somewhat with ISO8601, it is a different specification with a different set of formats.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why are we mentioning the ISO standard at all? It isn't actually relevant. There are innumerable other standards that it isn't defined by.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's really what I'm trying to get at.