> My question is why isn't the DateField implementation of ISO 8601 broader so > that it could include YYYY and YYYYMM as acceptable date strings? What would > it take to do so?
Nobody ever cared? But yes, you're right, the spurious precision is annoying. However, there is no "fuzzy search" for dates so the precision is always used. Let's say I want to limit it to "19th century America culture". 1790-1910 are a fairly contiguous sequence in US history, with a massive break at 1910 for WW1. > Are there any work-arounds for faceting by century, year, month without > creating new fields in my schema? The last resort would be to create these > new fields but I'm hoping to leverage the power of the DateField and the trie > to replace range stuff. There are no workarounds as yet. You do not have to store the century/year etc. fields, only index them. Tries do not support faceting yet. > Some interesting observations from tinkering with the DateFieldTest: > * 2003-03-00T00:00:00Z becomes 2003-02-28T00:00:00Z The date parser should blow up with these values!
