Require ISO 8601 date or datetime literals #687
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I think I oppose this change as written. We need to discuss as a group. 😿 |
sffc
requested changes
Feb 26, 2024
| The `timezoneOffset` of each of these formats is optional. | ||
| When the offset is not present, implementations should use a floating time type | ||
| A **_<dfn>date/time literal value</dfn>_** is a non-empty string consisting of an ISO 8601 date, | ||
| or an ISO 8601 datetime optionally followed by a timezone offset. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Issue: why only a timezone offset? In general IANA time zone annotations should be used instead.
Did you consider citing IXDTF?
|
In the 2024-02-26 call the WG agreed to merge this. Further work will be done on date/time/datetime literals (as already planned). |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #680, see discussion there.
The regexp included here is the subset that should be supported by all reasonable implementations.
This may need a rebase once #685 lands.