• tisktisk@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    Anyone help enlighten me about whatever this and unix epoch are getting at? Are these really more specific/better than iso 8601 and why specifically?

    • kata1yst@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Happily!

      So, first epoch time. It’s a pretty robust standard, covers many use cases, has few edge cases… but it’s specifically for machine usage, since it’s not human readable and it’s not reversible into the past (pre-1970).

      ISO 8601 (depending on the annum), by the text of the documentation, these are all valid dates:

      • 2007-04-05T14:30
      • 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
      • 2007-04-05T14:30Z
      • 200704051430
      • 07-04-05T14:30
      • 2007-95T14:30

      Etc.

      RFC 3339 (& RFC 9557, it’s newest modification) is actually a subset of ISO 8601 and is far more prescriptive. For example you must have a timezone designator. You must have a separator between the date and time. You must use a dash between date elements and a colon between time elements. You can easily add standardized subseconds.

      • 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
      • 2007-04-05 14:30Z

      This means that RFC 3339 is much easier to parse and use by both machines and humans.

      This page (reddit, I know…) has a great summary, and so in the interest of knowledge and attribution I’ll link it: https://www.reddit.com/r/ISO8601/comments/p572xy/rfc_3339_versus_iso_8601/

      This website allows you to more directly compare the two interactively. https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/

      • tisktisk@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        This is delicious, and I can’t say thank you enough. I like this a lot. If anyone has any insight on more superior standards or subsets of these, please inform me. This made my day tho 😊