This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author r.david.murray
Recipients ajaksu2, belopolsky, daniel.urban, eric.araujo, l0nwlf, r.david.murray, techtonik
Date 2010-06-04.15:38:05
SpamBayes Score 0.051532075
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <>
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.
Date User Action Args
2010-06-04 15:38:08r.david.murraysetrecipients: + r.david.murray, belopolsky, techtonik, ajaksu2, eric.araujo, daniel.urban, l0nwlf
2010-06-04 15:38:07r.david.murraysetmessageid: <>
2010-06-04 15:38:06r.david.murraylinkissue7584 messages
2010-06-04 15:38:05r.david.murraycreate