Skip to content
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.

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

How should Intl.DTF timeZoneName option be formatted in this proposal? #8

Open
justingrant opened this issue Sep 2, 2023 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #18
Open

How should Intl.DTF timeZoneName option be formatted in this proposal? #8

justingrant opened this issue Sep 2, 2023 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #18

Comments

@justingrant
Copy link

One interesting question would be how the timeZoneName option should be handled. It seems reasonable to use the IXDTF format (the one we're working with IETF to specify) like 2020-12-25T12:34:56[America/Los_Angeles].

This formatting can also be delegated to Temporal AOs if needed.

It also makes sense to specify in this proposal whether the options bag {timeZoneName: "long"} should assume a full date should be shown like 2020-01-01[America/Los_Angeles], or if only America/Los_Angeles should be returned. I assume the former for backwards compatibility?

@eemeli
Copy link
Member

eemeli commented Sep 2, 2023

Using the IXDTF format does sound sensible.

It also makes sense to specify in this proposal whether the options bag {timeZoneName: "long"} should assume a full date should be shown like 2020-01-01[America/Los_Angeles], or if only America/Los_Angeles should be returned. I assume the former for backwards compatibility?

I don't think that's necessarily within scope; the behaviour should match what's used with other locales.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants