[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer"
|
From: |
Yuri Khan |
|
Subject: |
Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer" |
|
Date: |
Thu, 1 Aug 2019 00:26:02 +0700 |
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:02 AM Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> wrote:
> >> How about ISO 8601?
> >
> > They also mention RFC 2822 and RFC 3339 tho,
> > and of them three, I think I'd vote for 3339:
> >
> > 2006-08-14 02:34:56-06:00
>
> Thanks, I didn't know those!
Be aware that proper RFC 3339 is a subset of ISO 8601; as such, it,
too, uses the T separator between date and time, not the space.
- Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer", (continued)
- Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer", Stefan Monnier, 2019/07/30
- Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer", Emanuel Berg, 2019/07/30
- Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer", Emanuel Berg, 2019/07/30
- Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer", Marcin Borkowski, 2019/07/31
- Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer", Emanuel Berg, 2019/07/31
- Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer", Marcin Borkowski, 2019/07/31
- Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer", Emanuel Berg, 2019/07/31
- Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer", Marcin Borkowski, 2019/07/31
- Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer", Dan Sommers, 2019/07/31
- Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer", Marcin Borkowski, 2019/07/31
- Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer",
Yuri Khan <=
- Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer", Emanuel Berg, 2019/07/31
- Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer", Stefan Monnier, 2019/07/31
- Re: improvements to the "lossage buffer", Marcin Borkowski, 2019/07/31