| 1 |
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 04:57:23AM -0700, Lares Moreau wrote: |
| 2 |
> A couple things I noted: |
| 3 |
> (1) |
| 4 |
> In News Item Identities we have the following date format, |
| 5 |
> > Each news item will have a unique identifier. This identifier will be |
| 6 |
> > in the form ``yyyy-mm-dd-short-name`` |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Later in "News Item Headers" we have an other in order to be compatable |
| 9 |
> with GLEP 1. |
| 10 |
> > ``Posted:`` |
| 11 |
> > Date of posting, in ``dd-mmm-yyyy`` format (e.g. 14-Aug-2001) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Is there any reason why we can't keep all the dates in the GLEP 1 date |
| 14 |
> format? IMHO this helps prevent confusion. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As noted in the original GLEP 42 discussion, I strongly feel we should |
| 17 |
use an ISO-8601 compliant date string representation as this is both |
| 18 |
a) international, b) easy to read and c) machine parsable. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601 or date(1) for more |
| 21 |
information. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Regards, |
| 24 |
Brix |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@g.o> |
| 27 |
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd |
Archives