#9028 closed defect (wontfix)
dojo.date.stamp.fromISOString Non-ISO Compliant
| Reported by: | Jarrod Carlson | Owned by: | Adam Peller |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | high | Milestone: | tbd |
| Component: | Date | Version: | 0.9 |
| Keywords: | dojo date iso parser | Cc: | |
| Blocked By: | Blocking: |
Description
According to the ISO 8601 standard on date-time formats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601
The time zone offset can be listed as either "-04:00" or "-0400", both of which are equivalent. Currently, dojo.date.stamp.fromISOString will return different dates for strings with a separator in the timezone:
>>> dojo.date.stamp.fromISOString("2009-04-01T10:30:00-04:00")
Wed Apr 01 2009 10:30:00 GMT-0400 (EDT)
>>> dojo.date.stamp.fromISOString("2009-04-01T10:30:00-0400")
Wed Apr 01 2009 10:23:20 GMT-0400 (EDT)
>>> dojo.date.stamp.fromISOString("2009-04-01T10:30:00-07:00")
Wed Apr 01 2009 13:30:00 GMT-0400 (EDT)
>>> dojo.date.stamp.fromISOString("2009-04-01T10:30:00-0700")
Wed Apr 01 2009 10:18:20 GMT-0400 (EDT)
The returned date has a margin of error dependent on the offset.
In fact, none of the separators in the string are required, save for the 'T' delineating the date and time, a localized indicator of the fraction of a second (ms), and the '+/-' indicating a positive or negative offset.
This issue can be resolved with the attached patch for dojo.date.stamp.
After the patch, the following works correctly:
>>> dojo.date.stamp.fromISOString("2009-04-01T10:30:00-07:00")
Wed Apr 01 2009 13:30:00 GMT-0400 (EDT)
>>> dojo.date.stamp.fromISOString("2009-04-01T10:30:00-0700")
Wed Apr 01 2009 13:30:00 GMT-0400 (EDT)
>>> dojo.date.stamp.fromISOString("20090401T103000-0700")
Wed Apr 01 2009 13:30:00 GMT-0400 (EDT)
Attachments (1)
Change History (5)
Changed 12 years ago by
| Attachment: | dojo.date.stamp.js.diff added |
|---|
comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by
ISO dates can also be specified as Week Dates or Ordinal Dates, but I'll leave that to another ticket (enhancement)
comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by
| Milestone: | 1.3.1 → tbd |
|---|---|
| Resolution: | → wontfix |
| Status: | new → closed |
ISO 8601 supports a lot of things which we don't. We've chosen a simple subset or profile of the standard, as specified in our docs, to implement for our timestamps to keep the code simple, fast, and small.
A more complete 8601 implementation might make sense in dojox.date.
comment:3 Changed 12 years ago by
Can you please reconsider this fix? The patch is very simple, and already attached. It just updates the regex in dojo.date.stamp, which won't have a performance impact on the processing at all.
This problem has been bothering me since the 0.9 conversion. I can get around it by modifying dojo.date.stamp._isoRegExp in my own code, but that's not quite eloquent.
Is there a reason for not allowing the separators to be optional?
comment:4 Changed 12 years ago by
@msmith: as with other things in the 0.9 conversion, we kept this deliberately limited choice. Exposing the isoRegexp for customization was a compromise. If other committers think it's a good idea to loosen up here, I won't object, but my instinct tells me to keep this method simple. We'd need to verify that it doesn't impact performance. Please note that the above regexp is not precise and would also allow
"200904-01T10:3000-0700"
dojo.date.stamp.js.diff