qaz@lemmy.world to Mildly Infuriating@lemmy.worldEnglish · 6 个月前The document specifying the usage of ISO8601 doesn't use ISO8601lemmy.worldimagemessage-square9fedilinkarrow-up1211arrow-down114
arrow-up1197arrow-down1imageThe document specifying the usage of ISO8601 doesn't use ISO8601lemmy.worldqaz@lemmy.world to Mildly Infuriating@lemmy.worldEnglish · 6 个月前message-square9fedilink
minus-squareanemoia_one@lemmynsfw.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down3·6 个月前Just chiming in to say fuck ISO, all my homies use rfc (In this case rfc 3339)
minus-squareanemoia_one@lemmynsfw.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·6 个月前They aren’t open standards like rfc, you have to pay to access them: https://www.iso.org/store.html It’s similar to the UN in membership, and in my opinion the member states should pay to allow the standards to be open
minus-squarezik@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down1·edit-26 个月前ISO uses a weird separator ‘T’ between the time and the date. eg. 2018-04-01T15:20:15.000-0700 RFC3339 can have a space instead which is a bit more readable: eg. 2020-12-09 16:09:53+00:00
Just chiming in to say fuck ISO, all my homies use rfc
(In this case rfc 3339)
what’s wrong with ISO?
They aren’t open standards like rfc, you have to pay to access them:
https://www.iso.org/store.html
It’s similar to the UN in membership, and in my opinion the member states should pay to allow the standards to be open
ISO uses a weird separator ‘T’ between the time and the date. eg. 2018-04-01T15:20:15.000-0700
RFC3339 can have a space instead which is a bit more readable: eg. 2020-12-09 16:09:53+00:00