nitpicking date format

Adrian Buehlmann adrian at cadifra.com
Thu Apr 28 12:02:16 CDT 2011


On 2011-04-28 18:42, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
> (forwarding this to the list, got it in private email)
> 
> On 2011-04-28 18:26, Ben wrote:
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>> Sorry for replying off-band, I'm not at work, and cannot respond
>> conveniently to your mail.
>>
>>>
>>> Another (possibly nitpickish) thing I started wondering (sorry for
>>> mentioning this late):
>>> Would it make sense to have the dates inside the html page in
>>> isodatesec format or similar (e.g. "2009-08-18 13:00:13 +0200", see
>>> 'hg help templating') instead of the current (example) "Tue Apr 26
>>> 14:42:14 2011 +0200"?
>>> isodatesec looks like it might be a bit easier to parse and it's even
>>> a little bit shorter (5 bytes per date).
>>
>> No, actually, this wouldn't be handy as Javascript is directly parsing
>> the "Tue Apr 26 14:42:14 2011
>> +0200". The other date format would mean extra parsing work. And that
>> "Tue Apr 26 14:42:14 2011
>> +0200" has already been there since the beginning at most of the places
>> (see changeset description).
>>
>> About your bandwidth concern at those places (changeset description), we
>> are actually winning bytes by not transferring the "(XXX ago)" over the
>> link, but generating it locally.
>>
>> I will send an updated patch tomorrow morning when arriving at work.

Hmm. I tried entering:

<paste>
var once = new Date('2009-08-18 13:00:13 +0200');
document.write(once.toString());
</paste>

at http://writecodeonline.com/javascript/ and it seemed to work fine.

The result was:

"Tue Aug 18 2009 13:00:13 GMT+0200 (W. Europe Daylight Time)"


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list