Date field format should match exif spec

I agree but the date module is still in heavy development. I will make a try when integration with other stable modules will be finished.

head of 7.x branch has been updated.
Code for the integration of the module has been adapted from 6.x branch to handle the new date fields. Please review.

Now that Date module integration is committed, is it best practice that date information be stored via a datestamp field, as opposed to a date or datetime field?

I've been searching (unsuccessfully) for the native Exif value. If it's a Unix timestamp, then using datestamp makes sense. I just want to be sure.

This is what I did to get this to work:
On the image file type (media module), I added a field for "Timestamp".
I used the "Date" field, and "metadata from image" widget.
I selected all date attributes, no end date, and no time zone conversion (since exif spec doesn't support it.)
I used the "exif_datetime" field data

And I applied the attached patch, because the exif spec defines a different datestamp format. See the w3c web site for more info:
http://www.w3.org/2003/12/exif/#example

Here's a better patch. Didn't realize that you actually added a whole configurable date format. Was that really necessary? The exif spec is supposed to be standard.

In any case, the default should be the spec.

Hello,

I am thinking I am following the specification. There is no 'T' that seperate date and time.

I have extracted the date format from http://www.exif.org/Exif2-2.PDF page 28 :
The date and time of image creation. In this standard it is the date and time the file was changed. The format is
"YYYY:MM:DD HH:MM:SS" with time shown in 24-hour format, and the date and time separated by one blank
character [20.H]

regards,