Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 96.85%. Comparing base (c150e71) to head (25ee59d).
⚠️ Report is 43 commits behind head on main.

@@           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.

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.

RFC 9557 doesn't cover duration strings.

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.

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".

OK, if there aren't any objections to the new term then let's just merge this.