Skip to content

incorporate RFC 9557 time zone extension into 'date-time' format #1609

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jul 21, 2025
Merged

incorporate RFC 9557 time zone extension into 'date-time' format #1609

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
b0a1cdb
incorporate RFC 9557 time zone extension into 'date-time' format
gregsdennis Jun 21, 2025
8bdeaa6
Update specs/jsonschema-validation.md
gregsdennis Jul 13, 2025
3dca1c9
Update specs/jsonschema-validation.md
gregsdennis Jul 13, 2025
55097db
add clarity and full-inclusion of rfc9557 format
gregsdennis Jul 13, 2025
d6aba7b
date-time-ext allows for no suffix
gregsdennis Jul 17, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
14 changes: 8 additions & 6 deletions specs/jsonschema-validation.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -397,22 +397,24 @@ custom format values.
These attributes apply to string instances.

Date and time format names are derived from
[RFC 9557, section 4.1](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9557) which extends
[RFC 3339, section 5.6](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339). The duration
format is from the ISO 8601 ABNF as given in Appendix A of RFC 3339.

- *date-time*: A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a
valid representation according to the "date-time" ABNF rule (referenced above)
valid representation according to the "date-time" ABNF rule in RFC 3339,
optionally with the "time-zone" rule in RFC 9557
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This text is not clear to me... is the intent to allow a subset of the RFC 9557 grammar that includes time-zone but not suffix-tag? If so, I think that should be more explicit:

Suggested change
valid representation according to the "date-time" ABNF rule in RFC 3339,
optionally with the "time-zone" rule in RFC 9557
valid representation of the "date-time" ABNF rule in RFC 3339 or such a
string that is immediately followed by a valid representation of the
"time-zone" rule in RFC 9557

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, yes, I see. I had stopped in that block in 9557 at time-zone and didn't continue on to see suffix. That should certainly be included.

I think what we're looking for here is date-time-ext, except that suffix is optional. I'll update this.

- *date*: A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a valid
representation according to the "full-date" ABNF rule (referenced above)
representation according to the "full-date" ABNF rule in RFC 3339
- *time*: A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a valid
representation according to the "full-time" ABNF rule (referenced above)
representation according to the "full-time" ABNF rule in RFC 3339
- *duration*: A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a valid
representation according to the "duration" ABNF rule (referenced above)
representation according to the "duration" ABNF rule in ISO 8601

Implementations MAY support additional attributes using the other format names
defined anywhere in that RFC. Implementations SHOULD NOT define extension
attributes with any name matching an RFC 3339 format unless it validates
according to the rules of that format.[^5]
attributes with any name matching an RFC 3339, RFC 9557, or ISO 8601 format
unless it validates according to the rules of that format.[^5]

[^5]: There is not currently consensus on the need for supporting all RFC 3339
formats, so this approach of reserving the namespace will encourage
Expand Down
Loading