Subject: editorial suggestion (draft 08): "date-time" format

From: Isofarro <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 11:36:44 +0100

In section 3.3 titled "Date Constructs"

3.3  Date Constructs

    A Date construct is an element whose content MUST conform to the
    "date-time" production in [RFC3339].  In addition, an uppercase "T"
    character MUST be used to separate date and time, and an uppercase
    "Z" character MUST be present in the absence of a numeric time zone
    offset.

RFC3339 <url:http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3339.html> is offered as a 
description of the date format. I originally missed the nuance of 
"date-time", and immediately mistakenly thought all the "date formats" 
of section 5.6 in RFC3339 (including just the year alone) were allowed. 
(I was quickly scanning for an example of a date format - it was a silly 
series of mistakes on my part).

Suggest that you list an example or two of the date formats allowable. 
Saves readers hunting down an example and missing the explicit mention 
of which format.

So adding the following might alleviate confusion (the second uses the 
optional fraction of a second), and a time offset other than GMT (Z):

<updated>2003-12-13T18:30:02Z</updated>
<updated>2003-12-13T18:30:02.25Z</updated>
<updated>2003-12-13T18:30:02+01:00</updated>
<updated>2003-12-13T18:30:02.25+01:00</updated>

Thanks,
Mike

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 11:17:30 -0400

> Saves readers hunting down an example and missing the explicit mention

Agree. Will do.

Robert Sayre