From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eigenstate.org ([206.124.132.107]) by ewsd; Tue Dec 10 14:34:42 EST 2019
Received: from eigenstate.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eigenstate.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id ada49816;
	Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:34:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=eigenstate.org; h=
	message-id:to:subject:date:from:in-reply-to:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mail; bh=c5OqWeA7ob6b
	MtSiFtYUp+s4KwE=; b=lvMRextDC7lWCGTWuOHYyoe5ivhB998TmmnQupE90pzE
	Td15sWYSdG41iHbHvlDazzIqTmUy2AKNcdtzjzHyz9dZq+aRLbAaWePFYtPoD8Pa
	7ARQKSoXTY0BOy9jmrWC6GCH9zw0OLpTv9yV+6lZmam7UpMzGt91cWMIL1P5kwI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=eigenstate.org; h=message-id
	:to:subject:date:from:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=mail; b=PzcnMrF+oBJHeqm00IX
	JnKBeLYzQquicDFggfpbTzdzBxeyWHQRENt49cHGRWlZhiYQkITyY1L/CvufYAXY
	oqUu85bZpQtn6hX+/allx8KTmDaCKfA6xi95hl7hdmNjTfMZ4TYZUftDzLVy6MAo
	I23f37vKpt1nM20Pch/A83pE=
Received: from abbatoir.hsd1.ca.comcast.net (c-76-21-119-139.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.21.119.139])
	by eigenstate.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 4aace578 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256:NO);
	Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:34:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <361ED9A9F4CE301DE0E938744EF73C41@eigenstate.org>
To: cinap_lenrek@felloff.net, 9front@9front.org
Subject: Re: [9front] date -t vs rfc3339 i which is correct:
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 11:34:40 -0800
From: ori@eigenstate.org
In-Reply-To: <241E176E19E4EE22ACD22FDCCFAA6E31@felloff.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: wrapper blockchain 

> my interpretation is that this rfc3339 is a SUBSET of iso-8601 and we
> hit edge case in iso-8601 that is outside of rfc3339. we'r correct
> for iso 8601 but not for rfc3339. i think this should be changed
> so we cover both specifications and make date -t more widely usefull.
> 
> --- a/sys/src/cmd/date.c	Mon Dec 09 18:08:02 2019 +0100
> +++ b/sys/src/cmd/date.c	Tue Dec 10 20:15:42 2019 +0100
> @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
>  char*
>  isodate(Tm *t)
>  {
> -	static char c[25]; /* leave room to append isotime */
> +	static char c[26]; /* leave room to append isotime */
>  	snprint(c, 11, "%04d-%02d-%02d", 
>  		t->year + 1900, t->mon + 1, t->mday);
>  	return c;
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
>  			c[9] = '-';
>  			tz = -tz;
>  		}
> -		snprint(c+10, 5, "%02d%02d", tz / 60, tz % 60);
> +		snprint(c+10, 6, "%02d:%02d", tz / 60, tz % 60);
>  	} else {
>  		c[9] = 'Z';
>  		c[10] = 0;
> 
> --
> cinap

The change looks good to me, but one question:

Is there anything that uses the output of 'date -t' and cares?
(How did we run into this?)