4 ms·
Yups. And making a whole datetime RFC part of the spec kind of broke with the "minimal" thing. But apart from that I totally prefer it over INF/YML/JSON/XML for
by cies 8y ago
Yups. And making a whole datetime RFC part of the spec kind of broke with the "minimal" thing. But apart from that I totally prefer it over INF/YML/JSON/XML for many purposes.
- wvh 8y agoI guess there's no way around that though, if you want dates to be first class members. Can't do "a bit of date".
- mojombo 8y agoWe added a proper datetime type because the only thing worse than having one is not having one. If you had to supply a datetime as a string, every TOML file would have a different way of doing it, which is...not so obvious.
- adamch 8y agoExcluding the datetime RFC in the name of minimalism would make the language much worse (coughjson). I feel like this is as simple as it could be, but no more.
- laumars 8y agoDatetime does need to be part of the spec if you want your markup files portable otherwise every TOML parser might decode a date slightly differently. In that regard it is really no different to saying "01" (string) is different to 1 (integer) in terms of preserving your data's integrity.