Re: A structured format for dates?

[Erik Wilde <[e-mail]>]

hello roberto.

On 2022-09-09 18:38, Roberto Polli wrote:
> 1. a non human-readable serialization makes SF-Date something
> different from Date;
> 2. if this is clear to everyone, it's ok to me, since Date has a lot
> of machine-processing use cases (e.g. caching).
> 
> For new fields, I think that using this data type should not be a
> MUST. I'd like to be free to standardize a new field
> that conveys a date in ISO format (e.g. as a string).

that's possibly a slippery slope. i don't think a MUST is even feasible, 
but it would be good to have some clear guidance. it could be something 
along of the lines of recommending that:

- the general recommendation for timestamps is to use SF-Date which is 
easy to parse and understand for machines.

- if human-readability is a concern, then please use X (RFC 3339?) for 
timestamps.

cheers,

dret.

-- 
Erik Wilde | mailto:[e-mail]    |
            | https://youtube.com/ErikWilde |