3 ms·
I think you actually mean RFC3339. ISO8601 is probably a lot larger than you think.
by daurnimator 12y ago
I think you actually mean RFC3339. ISO8601 is probably a lot larger than you think.
- ajanuary 12y agoRFC3339 makes most of the fields mandatory, while this library leaves them optional, so it is more accurately a subset of ISO8601 than an implementation of RFC3339. That said, you could describe it as an extension of RFC3339.