[wp-xmlrpc] WP 2.2.1 breaks Ruby 1.8.2

[Joseph Scott]

On Jun 26, 2007, at 12:42 PM, Joe Cheng wrote:

>> My gut feeling is to support option 1, spelling out exactly what the
>> format MUST be (yyyyMMddThh:mm:ssZ) for that field and that anything
>> that does match that exactly is completely bogus.
>
> If we do include the Z, then it needs to not use the XML-RPC date/time
> datatype... which come to think of it, means people will have to parse
> the date themselves. I think that's a good reason NOT to include the
> Z.

Why can't we use the dateTime data type?  I've read over the XML-RPC  
spec at http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec which I read to indicate that the  
dateTime format is to follow the ISO 8601 format.  The other  
applicable section of the XML-RPC spec is:

----------
What timezone should be assumed for the dateTime.iso8601 type? UTC?  
localtime?

Don't assume a timezone. It should be specified by the server in its  
documentation what assumptions it makes about timezones.
----------

Now I suppose this could be read as telling people that they can't  
include time zone data in a dateTime field.  I read it as the server  
and the client should have negotiated that out in the documentation  
for the API being used.  And if our documentation states that the new  
date_post_gmt field will always be the GMT of the post and always  
have the format of yyyyMMddThh:mm:ssZ then we still meet the XML-RPC  
spec.  Nothing says that dateTime must never include time zone data.   
And if it did then it wouldn't be ISO 8601 then.

That was my logic at any rate, I'm happy to hear thoughts from others  
on this.


> And come to think of it, adding a timezone field instead of a GMT  
> field
> means people will have to parse a timezone, which no XML-RPC library
> will help you with. Daniel, I think you were right--we should just do
> dateCreatedUtc or whatever instead.

Cool, +1 for a new field with the complete GMT of the post date.

--
Joseph Scott
http://joseph.randomnetworks.com/