Author r.david.murray
Recipients ajaksu2, belopolsky, daniel.urban, l0nwlf, merwok, r.david.murray, techtonik
Date 2010-06-04.01:01:34
SpamBayes Score 0.286499
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1275613297.84.0.484885808985.issue7584@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I just took a look at RFC 3339, and I see what you mean, Anatoly, about the meaning of -00:00.  But reading further:

   "While the Internet does have a tradition of accepting reality when creating specifications, this should not be done at the expense of interoperability.  Since interpretation of an unqualified local time zone will fail in approximately 23/24 of the globe, the interoperability problems of unqualified local time are deemed unacceptable for the Internet."

It seems to me that we should not try to produce an RFC 3339 compliant date string from a naive datetime.  It will be practical to accept that restriction once issue 5094 is resolved.  Given this, I'd be OK with Z being the default.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-06-04 01:01:38r.david.murraysetrecipients: + r.david.murray, belopolsky, techtonik, ajaksu2, merwok, daniel.urban, l0nwlf
2010-06-04 01:01:37r.david.murraysetmessageid: <1275613297.84.0.484885808985.issue7584@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-06-04 01:01:36r.david.murraylinkissue7584 messages
2010-06-04 01:01:35r.david.murraycreate