Re: ecmascript 5 DATESTYLE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From ben hockey
Subject Re: ecmascript 5 DATESTYLE
Date
Msg-id F60B21FB-5FEA-4A8E-9211-3D6905255FB6@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ecmascript 5 DATESTYLE  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: ecmascript 5 DATESTYLE  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

On Dec 7, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

On tis, 2011-12-06 at 15:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
TBH, I think that inventing a new datestyle setting "ECMA" would be a
more appropriate investment of effort.

So we'd have a setting called "ECMA" that's really ISO, and a setting
called "ISO" that's really SQL, and a setting called "SQL" that's really
Postgres, and a setting called "Postgres" that's also Postgres but
different.


...and a setting called "XSD" that's also ISO.

for now i'm backing away from the ECMA option - what i was thinking of would be exactly the same as "XSD" except rather than a timezone of '+00:00' it would be a 'Z'.  from some quick searching, it seems that XSD should be capable of understanding 'Z' rather than '+00:00' so if i was going to do anything i'd work towards making that change to 'XSD'.  

however, as it turns out, the constraint i have that is requiring me to use 'Z' is not actually from ECMAScript 5 but from json-schema (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zyp-json-schema-03#section-5.23).  XSD is fully compatible with ECMAScript 5 date time string format (http://es5.github.com/#x15.9.1.15)  so i'm going to sit on this again for a little while and think some more.  maybe try to convince json-schema to relax their definition of date-time format.

i'll be back when i have a clear picture of what i think makes the most sense.

thanks,

ben...

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: ecmascript 5 DATESTYLE
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: documentation issue - extensions