Received: by 10.35.107.20 with SMTP id j20mr4656890pym.1182349761621;
        Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <dew...@unto.net>
Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.178])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v36si214047wah.2007.06.20.07.29.21;
        Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.85.146.178 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of dew...@unto.net)
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so135666wah
        for <twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.79.1 with SMTP id c1mr361310wab.1182349761172;
        Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.115.48.11 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <77facc500706200729o190ea572v42c39779a96e2800@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:29:21 -0700
From: "DeWitt Clinton" <dew...@unto.net>
To: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Change in date format?
In-Reply-To: <1182309928.605881.319440@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1179835756.310703.15740@36g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
	 <1182296332.559061.66750@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
	 <9fd96fa70706191843s25a7c34cw152aa483e2eacb00@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1182309928.605881.319440@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>

I agree with Mihai.  I think people will be fine with whichever
format, as long as it stays consistent and we know well in advance of
any changes.

For instance, the python library has been failing for the past day with:

  ValueError: time data did not match format:  data=Wed 13 Jun
20:05:15 +0000 2007  fmt=%a %b %d %H:%M:%S +0000 %Y

Since this breaks all code that uses that library, should I push out a
new version with the new date format, will the server revert to the
old format, or something else?

Thanks!

-DeWitt


On 6/19/07, Mihai Parparita <mihai.parpar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As long as these changes are announced, I'm fine with either format.
>
> More importantly, formats are still incorrect. Now I'm seeing:
>
> Wed 20 Jun 03:15:24 +0000 2007
>
> Before the format was:
>
> Sun May 27 06:50:49 +0000 2007
>
> (note the month name and day order)
>
> Mihai
>
> On Jun 19, 9:43 pm, "Britt Selvitelle" <anotherbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've fixed this. It was a change in some of the internals, where JSON
> > fomrats were changed from:
> > %a %d %b %H:%M:%S %z %Y
> >   to
> > %m/%d/%Y %H:%M:%S %Z
> >
> > ... for example:
> > Sat May 19 23:04:54 +0000 2007
> >   to
> > 05/22/2007 03:15:23 UTC
> >
> > So I've rolled back to our existing method, but it's pretty hard to parse.
> > The new method is parsed by most languages, and fits right into JS Date
> > objects.
> >
> > So going forward, would developers rather us switch to the latter of the two
> > formats above? I want to provide time for everyone to change their
> > applications if you want the change to be made.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Britt
> >
> > On 6/19/07, Mihai Parparita <mihai.parpar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > This seems to be happening again.
> >
> > > Mihai
> >
> > > On May 22, 8:09 am, Mihai Parparita <mihai.parpar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Dates contained in the API's JSON output used to be of the form:
> >
> > > > Sat May 19 23:04:54 +0000 2007
> >
> > > > Now they are:
> >
> > > > 05/22/2007 03:15:23 UTC
> >
> > > > Is this change intentional and permanent? The XML output is still
> > > > using the old date format.
> >
> > > > Mihai
> >
> > --
> > Britt Selvitelle
> > Do you follow me?http://twitter.com/bs
>
>