In short, RFC 3339 has all the useful formats we think of when we invoke ISO 8601. The ISO standard has those too, as well as a seemingly endless list of additional obscure and esoteric formats almost no one uses.
RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601
141–150 of 177 posts
Re: RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601
#142Note that Python still lacks any way to parse these dates in the standard library. You have to use a third party library to parse them. You might think `datetime.fromisoformat` parsed ISO dates but you'd be wrong; it doesn't support the trailing Z or any other form of timezone information. The docs are clear about this, and the developer discussion I've read basically boils down to "it's too hard to parse ISO dates s…
I’m amazed this is still a problem, it makes it hard to treat python seriously
Re: RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601
#143do you now whats ridiculous? that we germans (and europeans) also use the iso 8601 but it's still allowed to use din 5008 and the european date and time notations... WHY??? it's so stupid to use dd.MM.yyyy, it's worse in every way to yyyy-MM-dd. worse than that the old notation is preferred in most official documents..... WHY....
When using yyyy-MM-dd, I've had two people comment that they'd prefer if I didn't use American dates.
Re: RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601
#144The use of colon in timestamps is incompatible with several filesystems and this just drives me nuts.
My workaround has been to use alternate Unicode for colons[1] in filenames in Windows, along with similar substitutes for other illegal characters. For ease of input I use Autohotkey bindings (in this example: Alt+colon).
[1] '꞉' (U+A789). On my Windows systems the default typeface renders this identically to a regular colon.
Re: RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
ISO business model is so strange; in order to make money they have to hide the actual standard from the vast majority of engineers that it relates to, so we just assume whatever was proposed was close enough.
Yes, on practice the draft becomes the actual standard. That is, unless it's in a regulated industry that is required by law to follow the actual standard. Then it disobeys the law most of the time, and "disobey" the market the rest of the time and everything breaks. Also, it leaves the people with a secret law that nobody can know the consequences. The ISO governance should be changed ASAP. It was never good, and no…
It should not be legal to incorporate proprietary standards into law.
Re: RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, on practice the draft becomes the actual standard. That is, unless it's in a regulated industry that is required by law to follow the actual standard. Then it disobeys the law most of the time, and "disobey" the market the rest of the time and everything breaks. Also, it leaves the people with a secret law that nobody can know the consequences. The ISO governance should be changed ASAP. It was never good, and no…
> The ISO governance should be changed ASAP. It was never good, and nowadays it's a disaster. ISO was founded in 1947, and back then very many of its standards were about physical objects – pipe threads, screws, bearings, belts, film, steel, plastic, rubber, textiles, etc – and even today they still have many standards on those kinds of topics. Imagine you are an aerospace engineer in the 1970s, and you need a copy o…
Mandated ISO standards in 1947 was absurd secret law too. Democracy is not that new of a concept.
It's just that both regulations were much lighter so much fewer people would be affected, and at that time the world was in an extremely totalitarian mood, divided by two countries that imposed dictatorships wherever they went. But entrepreneurship existed by then just like it does now, and you can bet many people went poorer because they couldn't access the standards.
Also, they were much less accessible. If you couldn't just go to a library to read them because they weren't free, it meant most people could not get them at all. It was not just a matter of getting in a phone and calling the ISO customer center.
Re: RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
2021-10-24 in UTC+14 (Line Islands) and UTC-10 (Hawaii) are, in fact, 100% off.
Yeah the Line Islands are the exception as always.
We could've gone with most of New Zealand (UTC+13 summer time) and any of the US territories in UTC-11. These are marginal cases, not exceptional ones.
Re: RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plus the naive date times that seem to pop up by default. Frustrating.
Can you elaborate on this? Parsing ISO 8601 formatted dates doesn't result in naive Python datetimes: >>> datetime.fromisoformat("2021-10-24T20:17:41+02:00") datetime.datetime(2021, 10, 24, 20, 17, 41, tzinfo=datetime.timezone(datetime.timedelta(seconds=7200)))
Sorry, was on mobile and didn't elaborate. Was referring to datetime.datetime.now(); why can't it incorporate the local timezone?
Re: RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601
#149…and none of these do timezones properly! If your birthday party is: 2022-05-01T16:00+1000 …but tomorrow’s government abolishes daylight savings time, your birthday event has to change to: 2022-05-01T16:00+0900 . If you’d just said: 2022-05-01T16:00 Asia/Eastern_Siberia …you’d be fine and everyone will show up at the right time.
You're conflating two separate use cases. The point of the numerical-offset notation is exactly to denote a fixed point in time. For the birthday party example: it's not a given that I want to reschedule it when the local time zone changes (maybe I want to meet before sundown so we can sit outside? in that case, I would want to adjust the local time, keeping the solar timethe same). Sometimes of course, it is desirab…
> The point of the numerical-offset notation is exactly to denote a fixed point in time.
Then why support timezones at all? UTC-only is a much simpler way to denote fixed points in time; symbolic timezones are needed when you want to denote a human-friendly local timestamp. Numerical offsets are the worst of both worlds.
Re: RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The ISO governance should be changed ASAP. It was never good, and nowadays it's a disaster. ISO was founded in 1947, and back then very many of its standards were about physical objects – pipe threads, screws, bearings, belts, film, steel, plastic, rubber, textiles, etc – and even today they still have many standards on those kinds of topics. Imagine you are an aerospace engineer in the 1970s, and you need a copy o…
Mandated ISO standards in 1947 was absurd secret law too. Democracy is not that new of a concept. It's just that both regulations were much lighter so much fewer people would be affected, and at that time the world was in an extremely totalitarian mood, divided by two countries that imposed dictatorships wherever they went. But entrepreneurship existed by then just like it does now, and you can bet many people went p…
> Mandated ISO standards in 1947 was absurd secret law too. Democracy is not that new of a concept.
In the 1940s, if you wanted to read legislation, there was no downloading it for free off the Internet – either you purchased a printed copy, or found a library that held it – and you may have had to travel some distance to do so, there was no guarantee that your neighbourhood public library did. Most people viewed charging for printed copies of legislation as acceptable, given that it cost money to print them. So, in that sense, legally mandated ISO standards weren't fundamentally different from laws in general. Prior to the 1990s, when the Internet began to change people's expectations, the idea that everyone was entitled to a free personal copy of all legislation was not widely accepted, and few would have labelled that situation as anti-democratic or as "absurd secret law".
> It was not just a matter of getting in a phone and calling the ISO customer center.
In the 1940s, rather than calling the ISO secretariat in Switzerland directly, you would have called your national standards body, who acted as a reseller. Buying standards then was only harder than today in the sense that buying anything back then was harder than today.