Open rafaellehmkuhl opened 1 year ago
@ES-Alexander @joaoantoniocardoso it would be cool to have you guys input for an alternative timestamp format.
This frustrates me to no end, because both the relevant standards (ISO8601 & RFC3339) have only formats that are either nicely readable or highly compatible as a filename. That's exacerbated by the fact that people tend to like their timestamps to be localised to where the file was created, but consistent lexicographic sorting technically only orders correctly if the timestamps are all expressed in the same timezone, which is easiest to ensure compatibility for by using UTC (at the cost of intuitive understanding of the actual times).
I guess the main questions are about which properties are important, so here are my preferences:
.
should be reserved for the decimal indicator for seconds (to avoid confusion), and for the file extension (since that's non-negotiable)+1100
or -0700
)
T
to be unintuitive to read, and if we can't fully embrace the format then I think it's fine to replace that with an _
instead-
separator for that_
, -
, and .
are already used for other adjacent purposesFrom all that my preference is timestamps that look like YYYY-MM-DD_hhmmss.sss±ZZZZ
, e.g. 2023-08-11_165107.123+1100
Those are not well known which could be a problem on parsing, and @joaoantoniocardoso suggested that on compressing/decompressing those files will have those characters changed as they are Unicode.