Re: What date format for d/u/metadata ? Re: "Entry: NA" in debian/upstream/metadata
On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 08:33:04AM +0200, Andrius Merkys wrote:
> > But, donno, this RFC 5322 is barely parseable by eye, even though this
> > is how we typically put dates in Debian (you get this via 'date -R').
> > Much more readable though would be `date --rfc-3339=date`
>
> I would also vote for RFC 3339. RFC 5322 admittedly removes some
> ambiguity (as confusing YYYY-MM-DD for YYYY-DD-MM), but is not so easy
> to read/write. RFC 3339 is also widely used in Debian, for example, for
> appending timestamps to source package versions and package diff files [1].
>
> > Registry:
> > - Name: OMICtools
> > Entry: OMICS_33677
> > - Name: conda:bioconda
> > Entry: NA
> > Checked: 2021-03-05
> > - Name: guix
> > Entry: pigx-rnaseq
> > - Name: bio.tools
> > Entry: NA
> > Checked: 2021-03-05
> >
> > but do our American friends understand that this is not May? And we do
> > not need the time, as in
> >
> > 2021-03-05 20:14:12+01:00
Hi Andrius,
Just commenting on the date format part of the thread. Perhaps I am not
representative because I work in the computer field, but I don't find
the RFC 3339 confusing, nor do I think most other Americans would. I
can't recall seeing YYYY-DD-MM used very often, if ever - it seems
ambiguous - and RFC 3339 is prevalent in the workplace. I believe
Americans are accustomed to either:
MM/DD/YYYY, often with a 2-digit year - i.e. MM/DD/YY
or
YYYY-MM-DD
Cheers,
tony
Reply to: