HTML date format and Date.parse()

Keith Cirkel es-discuss at keithcirkel.co.uk
Tue Apr 30 02:38:43 PDT 2013


Is it worth pointing out that RFC3339[1] exists to specify a stricter
standard than ISO8601?

[1]: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3339.txt

--
Keith Cirkel


On 29 April 2013 19:10, Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
> <allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
> > Note that ISO 8601 says that formatting simplifications
> > such as leaving out the T is permitted with mutual agreement between the
> > parties interchanging a data.  It isn't clear who the other party is that
> > Ecma-262 could reach such an agreement with.
>
> I think I disagree with the premise that a careful reading of the
> vaguer parts of ISO 8601 is likely to help.
>
> ES and HTML each specify a date-time syntax already (each with a
> *non-normative* reference to ISO 8601). I'm just suggesting that they
> specify the same one, for consistency and interoperability. They're
> nearly identical already.
>
> >> Can ES adopt these changes? It seems to me HTML and JS might as well
> >> have the same rules for this sort of thing.
> >
> > Or maybe we should both just stick to a valid subset of ISO 8601.
>
> Do you mean: achieve consistency by having HTML retract its extensions
> to ISO 8601? I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed.
>
> > Like I said above, I think it would be fine for there to be a spec. that
> > adds additional browser implementation spec. format extensions for
> > Date.parse.
>
> Creating a new and separate standard over a few minor date-time syntax
> tweaks sounds like overkill.
>
> -j
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130430/033c5bd3/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list