Editorial: Define and consistently use a "ISO 8601 / RFC 9557 string" term

[gibson042]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.85%. Comparing base (c150e71) to head (25ee59d).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3115   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.85%   96.85%           
=======================================
  Files          21       21           
  Lines        9969     9969           
  Branches     1823     1823           
=======================================
  Hits         9655     9655           
  Misses        268      268           
  Partials       46       46           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[ptomato]

I think we decided some time ago to refer to "RFC 9557" primarily, and call the grammar "ISO 8601 / RFC 9557". @justingrant Do you remember?

I don't have much of an opinion on this.

[gibson042]

RFC 9557 doesn't cover duration strings.

[justingrant]

Yep, that matches my memory too: use RFC 9557 as the primary term, and when we introduce it, call out its relationship to ISO 8601. We should probably also call out the relationship to RFC 3339.

[ptomato]

RFC 9557 doesn't cover duration strings.

I am pretty sure that we still refer to any duration strings as "ISO 8601" and not "RFC 9557".