Author r.david.murray
Recipients ajaksu2, belopolsky, daniel.urban, l0nwlf, merwok, r.david.murray, techtonik
Date 2010-06-04.15:38:05
SpamBayes Score 0.0515321
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.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-06-04 15:38:08r.david.murraysetrecipients: + r.david.murray, belopolsky, techtonik, ajaksu2, merwok, daniel.urban, l0nwlf
2010-06-04 15:38:07r.david.murraysetmessageid: <1275665887.97.0.0511971540401.issue7584@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-06-04 15:38:06r.david.murraylinkissue7584 messages
2010-06-04 15:38:05r.david.murraycreate