4 ms·
I never understood what the T was for, besides being visual noise. why not just use spaces? 2012-05-04 12:20:34.000343 +01:00 Or, if spaces are not allowe
by Kilimanjaro 14y ago
I never understood what the T was for, besides being visual noise. why not just use spaces?
2012-05-04 12:20:34.000343 +01:00
Or, if spaces are not allowed for an unknown reason then:
2012.05.04-12:20:34.000343+01:00
Much better, still I prefer the simplicity of this:
20120504.122034
In UTC, almost as compact as an epoch, but human readable. Add as many digits as nano precision is needed.
- rmc 14y agoYou say "visual noise", I say "readability".
- tantalor 14y agoPostgres's timestamp type uses a space instead of a "T", e.g., "1999-01-08 04:05:06" http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/static/datatype-datetime.html#AEN4516 http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/static/datatype-datetime....
- Tobu 14y agoThe first option is generally allowed by protocols where spaces are appropriate. Using the other alternatives would get one into the business of defining standards, which no sane person with an appreciation for the subtlety of that task would do unless they had no choice. Having multiple separators or mashing the numbers together would undermine the distinctiveness of ISO8601, and the distinctiveness allows someone to know the precise semantics of a date even when it is taken out of context.