Re: [json] Re: Introduction Date and Function objects to the standard [DATE PARSER]
> var dt = new Date("mm-dd-yy hh:mm:ss.ms");Except for time zones.
> Since 99.999% of the dates / times I display in the UI come from the
> RDBMS -- this also made a lot of sense at the time....
> RE: Unix date / time -- not everyone is into Unix... many peopleAs another poster commented, unix epoch is a great transmission
> appear to be using PHP, Perl, and ASP... Personally -- if it were
> 100% Unix / C / Java / ANSI SQL types -- I would be a happy camper...
> but... we gotta provide support for the greatest common
> denominator... not the lowest common denominator...
format thanks to its explicit treatment of time zones. Every language
I deal with in my work uses it (PHP, Python, ECMA-, Action-, and
moving data between web servers, DB servers, and client browsers that
are in unknown locations. The Atom spec does something similar, by
requiring dates to be expressed in UTC.
I'm generally opposed to the inclusion of dates and functions into
limits what can be done with functions as data. No sense in taking a
simple, beautiful spec and complicating it just to satisfy a few edge
michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
- On 6/3/06, Kevin Smith <yahoogroups@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Martin Cooper" wrote:
> I'd suggest the Apache License 2.0, which pretty much says you canNo, that's not the case (and there is no "arguably" ;), at least from an ASF
> > do whatever you want with the software as long as you keep the
> > original license in place.
> Except that Apache License 2.0 code (arguably) can't be linked with
> GPL software, which is unfortunate.
There is a policy in place at the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) that
states that ASF projects cannot have required dependencies on, or bundle,
libraries licensed under the GPL or certain other licenses. What that means
is that whenever you download ASF software, you can be absolutely sure that
there are no "tricks up our sleeve" and you do not suddenly find yourself
using additional software, with incompatible licenses, that you may not have
That is _completely_ different from what you, as a user of ASF software,
choose to do with it. If you want to build an application that includes ASF
and GPL software, that is absolutely fine with the ASF.
For widest compatibility with
> other licenses, I prefer the MIT-style license, which is even moreI'd agree that the MIT license is very flexible, but I'd suggest caution
> liberal. The LGPL also tends to work well with proprietary and Free
with the LGPL in a business environment. But this is getting way off-topic
for this list...
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Yahoo! Groups Links