{"comment":{"created_at":"2011-10-12T15:13:52Z","body":"All right, clearly there is demand for a more lax date parser that complies more closely to ISO 8601 than ES5. I’ll create a new branch for it shortly.","updated_at":"2011-10-12T15:13:52Z","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/csnover/js-iso8601/issues/comments/2380343","id":2380343,"user":{"avatar_url":"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ffe1561ee79aea59ef8a68a56c365883?d=https://a248.e.akamai.net/assets.github.com%2Fimages%2Fgravatars%2Fgravatar-140.png","url":"https://api.github.com/users/csnover","id":229244,"login":"csnover"}},"action":"created","issue":{"number":4,"created_at":"2011-10-06T21:03:50Z","pull_request":{"diff_url":null,"patch_url":null,"html_url":null},"body":"One suggestion is to make the ':' in the TZ portion of the date optional.  Facebook's API reports back dates like: \"2011-10-06T18:46:22+0000\" which fail to parse with the current regular expression.  \r\n\r\nIf the expression was instead:\r\n\r\n    /^(\\d{4}|[+\\-]\\d{6})(?:-(\\d{2})(?:-(\\d{2}))?)?(?:T(\\d{2}):(\\d{2})(?::(\\d{2})(?:\\.(\\d{3}))?)?(?:(Z)|([+\\-])(\\d{2})(?::?(\\d{2}))?)?)?$/\r\n\r\nDates reported back by the Facebook API would work great as well.","comments":1,"title":"Make the ':' in the TZ be optional to handle Facebook dates","updated_at":"2011-10-12T15:13:52Z","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/csnover/js-iso8601/issues/4","id":1837840,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"closed_at":null,"user":{"avatar_url":"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b3969ec3bdca5bd2dababd5a1ba10f43?d=https://a248.e.akamai.net/assets.github.com%2Fimages%2Fgravatars%2Fgravatar-140.png","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jeremydobl","id":151671,"login":"jeremydobl"},"html_url":"https://github.com/csnover/js-iso8601/issues/4","labels":[],"state":"open"},"legacy":{"issue_id":1837840,"comment_id":2380343}}