Bug 1019027 - RFE: Suggest or enforce date formats in docs
Summary: RFE: Suggest or enforce date formats in docs
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: PressGang CCMS
Classification: Community
Component: Web-UI
Version: 1.2
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: pressgang-ccms-dev
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1014434
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-10-15 02:41 UTC by Matthew Casperson
Modified: 2018-09-21 23:08 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

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.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.