this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025
523 points (95.8% liked)

196

16822 readers
2751 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
523
ISO 8601 ftw rule (gregtech.eu)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

[email protected] gang, rise up

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 19 hours ago (9 children)

All my homies hate ISO, RFC 3339 for the win.

[–] amon 20 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

All my homies hate ISO

Said no-one ever?

EDIT: thanks for informing me i now retract my position

[–] [email protected] 28 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Nah, ISO is a shit organization. The biggest issue is that all of their "standards" are blocked behind paywalls and can't be shared. This creates problems for open source projects that want to implement it because it inherently limits how many people are actually able to look at the standard. Compare to RFC, which always has been free. And not only that, it also has most of the standards that the internet is built upon (like HTTP and TCP, just to name a few).

Besides that, they happily looked away when members were openly taking bribes from Microsoft during the standardization of OOXML.

In any case, ISO-8601 is a garbage standard. P1Y is a valid ISO-8601 string. Good luck figuring out what that means. Here's a more comprehensive page demonstrating just how stupid ISO-8601 is: https://github.com/IJMacD/rfc3339-iso8601

[–] [email protected] 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

P1Y is period notation. It means a Period of 1 Year. It actually makes decent sense tbh.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, it means something, and the meaning is not stupid. But since it is the same standard, it should be possible to be used to at least somehow represent the same data. Which it doesn't.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I think it is reasonable to say: "for all representation of times (points in time, intervals and sets of points or intervals etc) we follow the same standard".

The alternative would be using one standard for points in time, another for intervals, another for time differences, another for changes to a timezone, another for ...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The alternative would be

More reasonable, if you ask me. At least I came to value modularity in programming, maybe with standards it doesn't work as good, but I don't see why

[–] [email protected] 1 points 25 minutes ago

Standards are used to increase interoperability between systems. The more different standards a single system needs the harder it is to interface with other systems. If you have to define a list of 50 standard you use, chances are the other system uses a different standard for at least one of them. Much easier if you rely on only a handful instead

[–] [email protected] 9 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

if i am not wrong, it is because essentially both are same (slight differences in what is allowed and what is not, https://github.com/IJMacD/rfc3339-iso8601), but RFC is more free as in freedom

[–] amon 4 points 17 hours ago

Thx i take that back

load more comments (6 replies)