541
Perfect date (jlai.lu)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
151 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 1 year ago (8 children)

After all the self-important blowhards in the committe were satisified that they had put their fingerprint on the ISO8601 document with bullshit like "year-month-week" format support and signed off, they went home.

The rest stayed behind, waited a few minutes to be safe, and then quickly made RFC3339 like a proper standard.

This is what RFC3339 vs ISO8601 feels like.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Let's not forget that technically you have to pay for ISO8601, despite it being nearly useless as a standard because it allows several incompatible formats to coexist.

    Fucking wild.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    ISO8601 is YYYY-MM-DD nothing to do with weeks and isn;t the only difference of RFC3339 that you can use a space instead of a T in between the date and time? Also RFC3339 is only an internet standard while ISO is a generally international standard?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    ISO8601 is much much looser than RFC3339:

    https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yeah I know, but it also has a different use case. As far as I know RFC3339 is mostly used for programming while ISO8601 is the standard for international communication and I wish people would use it more. I have processed American invoices in the wrong month because of their date structure. I have no reason to it, but I always write my date ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No idea what you based those claims on, but the spec itself (I have the pdf) and Wikipedia's summary disagree. ISO8601 allows for YYY-MM-DD yes but it allows for a bunch of silly stuff.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601

    Both "2025-W24-4" and "2025‐163" are valid representations of today's date in ISO8601.

    (Also the optional timezone makes it utterly useless.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The omitting of timezones doesn't matter to a vast majority of the world, since most countries only have one time zone so I don't see a reason why that is relevant in most use cases.

    ISO is a general standard, it's in the name and the RFC is created for the internet, that is also in the name/description of the RF.

    Using 2025-164 can be handy, I actually use the day of the year to check what invoices from previous year are open since those are the invoices that are due 164 days or more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent