4 ms·
Do you prefer the full format (2017-04-27T09:43:04,0010+0100) or a related but more readable format (2017-04-27 09:43:04.0010 +01)?
by proaralyst 9y ago
Do you prefer the full format (2017-04-27T09:43:04,0010+0100) or a related but more readable format (2017-04-27 09:43:04.0010 +01)?
- doubleplusgood 9y agoMy personal preference would be sans TZ, since everything I can control is set to UTC immediately.
- ash 9y agoTechnically "Z" postfix is a TZ identifier for UTC time. It's short and makes the timestamp compatible with RFC 3399: 2017-04-27T09:43:04Z
- ralmeida 9y agoNot only technically, but also practically, since many tools, libraries and service APIs accept and produce the Z as the TZ identifier for UTC.
- lloeki 9y agoMinus bugs, and then having the TZ (even though it always should be Z) saves your bacon.
- doubleplusgood 9y agoAgreed.
- gbrown_ 9y agoPersonally I prefer the RFC 3339 profile as most syslog daemons support this.
- ash 9y agoRFC 3339 allows application to use space instead of T between date and time: NOTE: ISO 8601 defines date and time separated by "T". Applications using this syntax may choose, for the sake of readability, to specify a full-date and full-time separated by (say) a space character. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3339.txt https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3339.txt