Skip to content

Commit 96984f0

Browse files
authored
Merge pull request #399 from handrews/date-time
Support date and time, and allow for more RFC 3339
2 parents f26ef9c + 544244e commit 96984f0

File tree

1 file changed

+40
-6
lines changed

1 file changed

+40
-6
lines changed

jsonschema-validation.xml

Lines changed: 40 additions & 6 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -904,14 +904,48 @@
904904

905905
<section title="Defined formats">
906906

907-
<section title="date-time">
908-
<t>
909-
This attribute applies to string instances.
907+
<section title="Dates and times">
908+
<t>
909+
These attributes apply to string instances.
910+
</t>
911+
<t>
912+
Date and time format names are derived from
913+
<xref target="RFC3339">RFC 3339, section 5.6</xref>.
914+
</t>
915+
<t>
916+
Implementations supporting formats SHOULD implement support for
917+
the following attributes:
918+
<list style="hanging">
919+
<t hangText="date-time">
920+
A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is
921+
a valid representation according to the "date-time" production.
922+
</t>
923+
<t hangText="date">
924+
A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is
925+
a valid representation according to the "full-date" production.
926+
</t>
927+
<t hangText="time">
928+
A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is
929+
a valid representation according to the "full-time" production.
930+
</t>
931+
</list>
910932
</t>
911933
<t>
912-
A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a valid date
913-
representation as defined by <xref target="RFC3339">RFC 3339, section
914-
5.6</xref>.
934+
Implementations MAY support additional attributes using the other
935+
production names defined in that section. If "full-date" or "full-time"
936+
are implemented, the corresponding short form ("date" or "time"
937+
respectively) MUST be implemented, and MUST behave identically.
938+
Implementations SHOULD NOT define extension attributes
939+
with any name matching an RFC 3339 production unless it validates
940+
according to the rules of that production.
941+
<cref>
942+
There is not currently consensus on the need for supporting
943+
all RFC 3339 formats, so this approach of reserving the
944+
namespace will encourage experimentation without committing
945+
to the entire set. Either the format implementation requirements
946+
will become more flexible in general, or these will likely
947+
either be promoted to fully specified attributes or dropped.
948+
</cref>
915949
</t>
916950
</section>
917951

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)