#rfc3339 — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #rfc3339, aggregated by home.social.
-
"RFC 3339 vs ISO 8601 vs HTML"
https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/
Includes table with supported formats, a test file generator and a format checker! #iso8601 #RFC3339 #html
-
"RFC 3339 vs ISO 8601 vs HTML"
https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/
Includes table with supported formats, a test file generator and a format checker! #iso8601 #RFC3339 #html
-
"RFC 3339 vs ISO 8601 vs HTML"
https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/
Includes table with supported formats, a test file generator and a format checker! #iso8601 #RFC3339 #html
-
"RFC 3339 vs ISO 8601 vs HTML"
https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/
Includes table with supported formats, a test file generator and a format checker! #iso8601 #RFC3339 #html
-
"RFC 3339 vs ISO 8601 vs HTML"
https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/
Includes table with supported formats, a test file generator and a format checker! #iso8601 #RFC3339 #html
-
@tykling but #ISO8601 has so many nice things that aren't in #RFC3339 /o\
https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/ -
@tykling but #ISO8601 has so many nice things that aren't in #RFC3339 /o\
https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/ -
So you clicked on a thrilling showdown between RFC 3339 and ISO 8601, only to be whisked away to a text file on GitHub. 🤦♂️ Because who doesn't love a riveting debate about time formats with all the excitement of watching paint dry? ⏳🥱
https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/ #RFC3339 #ISO8601 #TimeFormats #TechDebate #GitHubFun #HackerNews #ngated -
So you clicked on a thrilling showdown between RFC 3339 and ISO 8601, only to be whisked away to a text file on GitHub. 🤦♂️ Because who doesn't love a riveting debate about time formats with all the excitement of watching paint dry? ⏳🥱
https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/ #RFC3339 #ISO8601 #TimeFormats #TechDebate #GitHubFun #HackerNews #ngated -
The author of this date format reference is my new hero! https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/ #iso8601 #rfc3339 #standards
-
@foss_events may I suggest #RFC3339 for #date formatting to avoid confusion?
-
@foss_events may I suggest #RFC3339 for #date formatting to avoid confusion?
-
I actually dislike #ISO8601 and prefer #rfc3339.
e.g. because I can read the RFC free of charge while ISO8601 costs 18 CHF.
Another reason is https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/ -
Periodic reminder that according to #RFC #RFC3339 , if it's not YYYY-MM-DD you don't have a #date, you're just hanging out.
Also you want #RFC3339 and *not* #ISO8601, see https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/ for horrors the latter allows, and that's besides the fact that you need to pay around 200 CHF to read the whole spec.And on that note, I received some documents that use M_D_YYYY in their naming... 🤢
-
Periodic reminder that according to #RFC #RFC3339 , if it's not YYYY-MM-DD you don't have a #date, you're just hanging out.
Also you want #RFC3339 and *not* #ISO8601, see https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/ for horrors the latter allows, and that's besides the fact that you need to pay around 200 CHF to read the whole spec.And on that note, I received some documents that use M_D_YYYY in their naming... 🤢
-
-
-
@fooderick
I used to say the same, but #RFC3339 is a much better idea. It does what you say, but does not allow for the horrible monsters that #ISO8601 does (`2024W046T10,9+0000` about takes the cake) - see https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/ for full comparison.
Also, being an ISO standard, you have to pay 173 CHF to be able to actually read it in full. -
@fooderick
I used to say the same, but #RFC3339 is a much better idea. It does what you say, but does not allow for the horrible monsters that #ISO8601 does (`2024W046T10,9+0000` about takes the cake) - see https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/ for full comparison.
Also, being an ISO standard, you have to pay 173 CHF to be able to actually read it in full. -
I always thought that #RFC3339 is a subset of #ISO8601, but apparently the former deviates from the latter. Something I discovered today when I was addressing a gap in the system.
Just check out this #cheatsheet that clearly shows what's common and what's not.
-
I always thought that #RFC3339 is a subset of #ISO8601, but apparently the former deviates from the latter. Something I discovered today when I was addressing a gap in the system.
Just check out this #cheatsheet that clearly shows what's common and what's not.
-
@cameron Though what you probably want is #RFC3339 rather than #ISO8601 https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/
-
@cameron Though what you probably want is #RFC3339 rather than #ISO8601 https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/
-
Awesome comparison between RFC3339 and ISO8601 time formats: https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/
