nitpicking date format

Adrian Buehlmann adrian at cadifra.com
Fri Apr 29 02:03:07 CDT 2011


On 2011-04-29 05:53, Kevin Grover wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:02, Adrian Buehlmann <adrian at cadifra.com
> <mailto:adrian at cadifra.com>> wrote:
> 
>     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)"
> 
> Funny, all I get is 'Invalid Date'

WTF?

I forgot to mention that for my first experiment I used Google Chrome
version 11.0.696.57. There I got that

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

But you are indeed right for IE9, and Firefox 4. With these I get

  "Invalid Date"

So, should I say "WTF Google?" Or does writecodeonline.com play some
evil tricks on me??

Anyway. My date format nitpick is hereby dismissed.





More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list