15.03.2016, 15:59, Joaquim Luis kirjoitti:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:01:29 -0000, Ari Jolma <[email protected]>
wrote:
15.03.2016, 14:08, Joaquim Luis kirjoitti:
GMT uses "yyy-mm-ddT[hh:mm:ss] (Gregorian) or yyyy-Www-ddT[hh:mm:ss]
(ISO)"
http://gmt.soest.hawaii.edu/doc/latest/gmt.conf.html#calendar-time-parameters
It would be nice to use the same.
I'm not sure I understand you correctly but strftime can do this:
OGR_DATETIME_FORMAT = "%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%S"
gives for example 2016-01-10T08:25:12 and
OGR_DATETIME_FORMAT = "%Y-%W-%dT%H:%M:%S"
gives 2016-01-10T08:25:12 for the same time - 10.1.2016 is on week
two (strftime: %W = Week number with the first Monday as the first
day of week one (00-53))
Sorry, it was me who misunderstood your question/suggestion. I thought
that printing with the above format was not possible yet and that's
why I pointed to what GMT does. But if GDAL can do it already, than
sorry for the noise.
It can't. That's why I'm suggesting this. The core of my suggestion is
to start using the strftime function and the config options.
I've actually implemented it already for testing, that's why I may sound
like that GDAL can do it already.
Cheers,
Ari
Joaquim
I think that there needs to be separate options for date and
datetime, i.e., OGR_DATE_FORMAT and OGR_DATETIME_FORMAT.
Ari
Joaquim
Folks,
The OGRFeature::GetFieldAsString returns date/time fields formatted
in non-standard way. For example date is output as "year/month/day"
as more usual "year-month-day". This causes problems in many programs.
I suggest adding a new config option OGR_DATE_FORMAT, which, if
set, would make the method return date/time formatted according to
it. I suggest that we use the strftime and its format argument as
the target for the new option.
The implementation is complicated a bit when milliseconds and
timezones are involved since they are not included in the struct tm
used by strftime. I suggest that we assume seconds are formatted as
:\d\d in the format and simply add milliseconds (as .\d\d\d) and
timezone (as [+-]\d\d(:\d\d)), if they exists, after the second.
Do you think this needs a RFC?
I'm willing to implement the changes.
Ari
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
