Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Documentation: DateTime fields, fix ISO 8601 type #1241

Open
msmuenchen opened this issue Jul 3, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Documentation: DateTime fields, fix ISO 8601 type #1241

msmuenchen opened this issue Jul 3, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@msmuenchen
Copy link

All documentation (e.g. entities/Account.md) state that DateTime fields are in ISO 8601 format.

This however is a bit misleading, given that at least Java and PHP specify "ISO" as a format in which the second has no fraction and thus leads to parsing errors if a programmer naively selects the predefined ISO 8601 format string. Besides, the ISO 8601 standard is not publicly available.

Therefore I suggest to replace all mentions of "ISO 8601" by "RFC 3339 (with fractional seconds)".

@ItIsOHM
Copy link

ItIsOHM commented Jul 6, 2023

Hey there, I'd like to work on this issue as a beginner. Can you please guide me a little if my approach is correct?
From what I can understand, I just need to find all the text ISO 8601 and just replace it with RFC 3339 (with fractional seconds)?

@nightpool
Copy link
Member

nightpool commented Jul 6, 2023 via email

@msmuenchen
Copy link
Author

msmuenchen commented Jul 6, 2023

Java and PHP are hardly "some" languages... but I did some research, turns out it's complete chaos - moment.js in the JS world is a lenient parser that does accept sub-second precision timestamps, Python relies on whatever an user's strftime implementation in libc supports, .NET accepts down to nanosecond precision - and Google Go doesn't carry a format specifier for ISO 8601 at all but has a lenient parser as well.

Personally I don't care too much, but I think referring to a standard that can be openly read without paying 129€ for a copy would be more appropriate.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants