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