• Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • kata1yst@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Deestan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        While a fucking stupid concept, it’s nice that this particular format has a monetary deterrent.

      • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Only if you want to say you have the certification for it, you can use it if you want, that is fine

    • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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?

        • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days 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)

      • Deestan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.)

        • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days 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.