this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
443 points (86.5% liked)

memes

15487 readers
1 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kata1yst@sh.itjust.works 39 points 4 days ago (2 children)

RFC 3339 if you please. Let's be prescriptive.

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago (2 children)

After all the self-important blowhards in the committe were satisified that they had put their fingerprint on the ISO8601 document with bullshit like "year-month-week" format support and signed off, they went home.

The rest stayed behind, waited a few minutes to be safe, and then quickly made RFC3339 like a proper standard.

This is what RFC3339 vs ISO8601 feels like.

[–] kata1yst@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Let's not forget that technically you have to pay for ISO8601, despite it being nearly useless as a standard because it allows several incompatible formats to coexist.

Fucking wild.

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

While a fucking stupid concept, it's nice that this particular format has a monetary deterrent.

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 points 4 days ago

Only if you want to say you have the certification for it, you can use it if you want, that is fine

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 2 points 4 days ago

ISO8601 is YYYY-MM-DD nothing to do with weeks and isn;t the only difference of RFC3339 that you can use a space instead of a T in between the date and time? Also RFC3339 is only an internet standard while ISO is a generally international standard?

[–] tisktisk@piefed.social 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Anyone help enlighten me about whatever this and unix epoch are getting at? Are these really more specific/better than iso 8601 and why specifically?

[–] kata1yst@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Happily!

So, first epoch time. It's a pretty robust standard, covers many use cases, has few edge cases... but it's specifically for machine usage, since it's not human readable and it's not reversible into the past (pre-1970).

ISO 8601 (depending on the annum), by the text of the documentation, these are all valid dates:

  • 2007-04-05T14:30
  • 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
  • 2007-04-05T14:30Z
  • 200704051430
  • 07-04-05T14:30
  • 2007-95T14:30

Etc.

RFC 3339 (& RFC 9557, it's newest modification) is actually a subset of ISO 8601 and is far more prescriptive. For example you must have a timezone designator. You must have a separator between the date and time. You must use a dash between date elements and a colon between time elements. You can easily add standardized subseconds.

  • 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
  • 2007-04-05 14:30Z

This means that RFC 3339 is much easier to parse and use by both machines and humans.

This page (reddit, I know...) has a great summary, and so in the interest of knowledge and attribution I'll link it: https://www.reddit.com/r/ISO8601/comments/p572xy/rfc_3339_versus_iso_8601/

This website allows you to more directly compare the two interactively. https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/

[–] tisktisk@piefed.social 4 points 4 days ago

This is delicious, and I can't say thank you enough. I like this a lot. If anyone has any insight on more superior standards or subsets of these, please inform me. This made my day tho 😊

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 points 4 days ago

ISO is a wider standard than the RFC standards though which is only for the internet