Bug 1019027

Summary: RFE: Suggest or enforce date formats in docs
Product: [Community] PressGang CCMS Reporter: Matthew Casperson <mcaspers>
Component: Web-UIAssignee: pressgang-ccms-dev
Status: NEW --- QA Contact:
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 1.2CC: cbredesen
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On: 1014434    
Bug Blocks:    

Description Matthew Casperson 2013-10-15 02:41:55 UTC 
IBM Style Guide pg 178-181 lists some dos and don'ts with dates. We should either present some kind of warning or enforce conformance with these rules through the PG editor. 

One area where this is most visible are the revision histories.

One option is to check anything in a <date> element conforms to a standard date format. The format "Mon 24 Jun 2013" seems to be commonly used.
Comment 1 Matthew Casperson 2013-10-15 02:50:59 UTC 
Java parses the following dates:

MM-dd-yyyy
MM/dd/yyyy
yyyy-MM-dd
yyyy/MM/dd
EEE MMM dd yyyy
EEE, MMM dd yyyy
EEE MMM dd yyyy Z
EEE dd MMM yyyy
EEE,dd MMM yyyy
EEE dd MMM yyyy Z
yyyyMMdd
yyyyMMdd'T'HHmmss.SSSZ

Of those, the following are acceptable according the the IBM style guide

EEE, MMM dd yyyy
EEE,dd MMM yyyy
Comment 2 Lee Newson 2013-10-15 03:19:44 UTC 
Just want to amend the above statement. Java can parse anything you can construct with a SimpleDateFormat, although the more formats the longer it's likely to take to parse. The above is what we currently allow when validating the Revision History in the builder.