Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
feedvalidator-users
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Basic format ISO8601 date-time considered invalid?
Options
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
   2 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Jimi  
View profile  
 More options Jan 23, 4:46 am
From: Jimi <jimi.hullegard.mo...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:46:33 -0800 (PST)
Local: Mon, Jan 23 2012 4:46 am
Subject: Basic format ISO8601 date-time considered invalid?
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Hi,

I have a problem getting my feed to validate. The problem is the
starttime and endtime elements (http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/
event/). Since I can not easily get the backend system to produce a
proper extended format* I tried with a basic format. I tried:
YYYYMMDDThhmmss±hhmm, but the validator complains that this is invalid
ISO8601 date-time. But I disagree.

I even copy pasted an example from the specification**:

19850412T101530+0400

But it results in the same error. How come this format is not allowed?
If the validator only allows a subset of all the possible syntax
variations, or only a specific version of the ISO8601 standard, then
it should be mentioned somewhere.

Regards
/Jimi

* Not without doing some manual fumbling with Strings and chars, and
that I want to avoid
** http://jibbering.com/faq/res/ISO_8601-2004_E.pdf page 19 (or page
25 if you use the pdf-viewer page count)


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Joseph Walton  
View profile  
 More options Feb 4, 4:00 am
From: Joseph Walton <joe.walton.gg...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 20:00:27 +1100
Local: Sat, Feb 4 2012 4:00 am
Subject: Re: Basic format ISO8601 date-time considered invalid?
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

You're right - that is valid ISO 8601, but the validator recognises a
profile described by the W3C: http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime . The
error message for InvalidISO8601Date should point to that profile as
well as the full ISO spec.

Try dash-separating your date and colon-separating your time for a valid format.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google