Standardizing on ISO Date, with PATH!-format Dates an Option?

Development Datatypes
1

So I've really only ever used DATE! once. And that one time I did use it, I had to convert it to an ISO date and timestamp.

In a mostly-unrelated PR, the thing @giuliolunati, @LkpPo, and @IngoHohmann all seemed to bring up would be that ISO date format support would be a good thing.

A New Option: PATH! for dates

So syntax-wise, there's nothing stopping you from making the PATH! 12/Dec/2012 if you want. (Well...or the tuple 2012.Dec.12, if you felt like it...then you could combine it in a PATH! with something else, maybe a TIME! 2012.Dec.12/0:00...though TIME! is currently illegal in PATH!)

Anyway, PATH!s present a fairly reasonable LOAD-able format for dialects that wanted them...that you wouldn't have to put in quotes. Their TYPE OF wouldn't be DATE!, but you could work with them structurally. Then you could convert them to and from the ISO dates.

I don't know enough of the issues to know exactly what all would be entailed in ISO dates. One theoretical benefit might be being able to use a vetted date library for arithmetic.

Reply here with concrete examples that contrast how DATE! works today and how you might imagine it working in an alternative more-ISO-friendly way.

2

For me it's just about being able to handle dates in iso format well.
Funnily 2020-10-20/12:30:00 is valid according to rfc3339 and can be handled by Rebol. (For it to be iso compliant the "/" would have to be changed to "T".)
And I would like the standard date output to be iso compliant, not something I guess no-one really uses.