Message107069
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 15:38:08 | r.david.murray | set | recipients:
+ r.david.murray, belopolsky, techtonik, ajaksu2, eric.araujo, daniel.urban, l0nwlf |
2010-06-04 15:38:07 | r.david.murray | set | messageid: <1275665887.97.0.0511971540401.issue7584@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-06-04 15:38:06 | r.david.murray | link | issue7584 messages |
2010-06-04 15:38:05 | r.david.murray | create | |
|