bug#6132: bug in date: --rfc-3339=TIMESPEC option doesn't print 'T'

[F. Alexander Njemz]

Hi,

as evidenced here [1] the slightly ambiguous wording in the RFC 3339 [2]
seems to be the reason that the date utility using the 
--rfc3339=TIMESPEC switch formats the date with a space instead of a 'T'.

I was confused as well, so I took the liberty to mail the authors of the
RFC in question. I attached the reply from Mr. Klyne.

There is also a patch attached.


Regards,

F. Alexander Njemz




[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2006-05/msg00014.html

[2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3339.txt

> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: rfc3339 is the T mandatory?
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Fri, 07 May 2010 13:05:41 +0100
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228)
>
>
>
>
> In short: "yes"
>
> Per section 5.5, the intent in this draft was to specify a timestamp format 
> using elements from and compatible with 8601, but eliminating as far as 
> reasonable any variations that could make timestamp data harder to process. 
> This includes making the 'T' mandatory in date+time values.
>
> #g
> --
>
> F. Alexander Njemz wrote:
> > Dear Sirs,
> >
> > there seems to be some confusion about the interpretation of the 
> > following passages
> > of RFC 3339:
> >     in section 5.6:
> >         NOTE: ISO 8601 defines date and time separated by "T".
> >         Applications using this syntax may choose, for the sake of
> >         readability, to specify a full-date and full-time separated by
> >         (say) a space character.
> >     and in Appendix A:
> >         ISO 8601 states that the "T" may be omitted under some
> >         circumstances.  This grammar requires the "T" to avoid ambiguity.
> >
> > So, what I would like to ask is if the "T" is mandatory for RFC 3339 
> > conformance or not?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > F. Alexander Njemz
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---

date-rfc-3339-DIFF
Description: Text document