Re: [Exist-open] Difference in outcome for datetime:format-date vs format-date

[Alexander H. <ah...@xs...>]

Hi Adam,

I obviously ran them the same time, since it was 1 call. The timezone reply got me wondering, so I updated the call to:

<x>
    <y>{datetime:format-date(current-date() - xs:dayTimeDuration('P30D'), 'yyyyMMddZ')}</y>
    <z>{format-date(current-date()-xs:dayTimeDuration('P30D'),'[Y0001][M01][D01][Z]')}</z>
    <!-- ++ -->
    <y>{datetime:format-dateTime(current-dateTime() - xs:dayTimeDuration('P30D'), 'yyyyMMddHHmmZ')}</y>
    <z>{format-dateTime(current-dateTime()-xs:dayTimeDuration('P30D'),'[Y0001][M01][D01][H01][m01][Z]')}</z>
</x>

and got:

<x>
    <y>20160303+0100</y>
    <z>20160304+02:00</z>
    <!-- ++ -->
    <y>201603041133+0100</y>
    <z>201603041233+02:00</z>
</x>

Which makes it even less clear. Note that this is on eXist-db 2.2 LTS, with a minor note that eXist-db 3.0RC1 yields the same.

Regards,

Alexander Henket




> Op 29 mrt. 2016, om 17:57 heeft Adam Retter <ad...@ex...> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> https://github.com/eXist-db/exist/pull/961
> 
> On 29 March 2016 at 11:17, Joe Wicentowski <jo...@gm...> wrote:
>>> datetime:format-date should be considered deprecated.
>> 
>> I agree - the deprecation should be made official (i.e., visible when
>> browsing function documentation), since the 3.1 spec gives us
>> fn:format-date, etc.  Likewise for xsl:format-*.
>> 
>> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Adam Retter
> 
> eXist Developer
> { United Kingdom }
> ad...@ex...
> irc://irc.freenode.net/existdb