Message107069
| Author |
r.david.murray |
| Recipients |
ajaksu2, belopolsky, daniel.urban, eric.araujo, l0nwlf, r.david.murray, techtonik |
| Date |
2010年06月04日.15:38:05 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.051532075 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1275665887.97.0.0511971540401.issue7584@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I see I didn't think it through far enough.
Given this, it seems that the Atom standard is saying, "if you don't know your actual UTC offset, you can't generate a valid ATOM timestamp". Which sorta makes sense, though you'd think they'd want to accept a -00:00 timestamp since then at least you know when the article was generated/modified, even if you don't know the local time of the poster. And maybe they do, since as someone pointed out -00:00 is a numeric offest...
I agree that generalizing the production of custom formats sounds like a better way forward long term. I'm not clear on why you think RFC3339 deserves its own module. |
|