[TxMt] er

[Allan Odgaard]

On 23. Jun 2007, at 23:44, Daniel Jalkut wrote:

>> At least its understood why it was done this way.  I find it  
>> humorous that its 2007 and there is no standard format for time, I  
>> mean in the sense of a "duh, of course its done this way"  Like  
>> writing hello world :)  Oh wait.......
> [...]
> The thing is there IS a standard format for time, which is the  
> format that is being used here (the Z and -0000 type extensions are  
> all part of ISO8601, which I believe is specified as the date  
> format for XML-RPC).

I don’t really agree here. The only indication of ISO 8601 in the  
[specification][1] is that it is part of the name.

But I think this is because the person who did the specification  
thought that ISO 8601 was limited to dates of the form  
19980717T14:08:55 (which is his example).

According to ISO 8601 our current date can be expressed as  
+002007W256 -- does MarsEdit understand that? :)

For anyone interested, the full spec can be [found here][2]. Only 40  
pages, but then it also defines time intervals and reoccurring time  
intervals :) Of course the “datetime” prefix given to ISO8601 in the  
XML-RPC spec could mean that it is only the date + time profiles  
which are allowed (yet, there are still a few of these, and the above  
is a “week date” in extended form which can be combined with a  
representation of time of day and form a date + time).


[1]: http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec
[2]: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/4021199/ 
ISO_8601_2004_E.zip?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=4021199