Conversation

Notices

1. lnxw48a1 (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Tuesday, 23-Oct-2018 11:46:06 EDT lnxw48a1
   For the record, year-month-date order is about the only one that makes sense, as the earlier segments constrain the scope of the later segments.
   
   I guess one could do it date-month-year, but that’s a lot of extra work ... date, now wait for the month before it has meaning, now wait for the year before the month has meaning.
   
   I think YYYY-MM-DD is superior.
   1. copyright respecter (kai@ajin.la)'s status on Tuesday, 23-Oct-2018 12:28:37 EDT copyright respecter

      in reply to

      @lnxw48a1 it's more than a feeling…it's ISO 8601

   2. mangeurdenuage (mangeurdenuage@loadaverage.org)'s status on Tuesday, 23-Oct-2018 13:54:53 EDT mangeurdenuage

      in reply to
      YYYY-MM-DD and DD-MM-YYYY are both ok what's frustrating for me is MM-DD-YYYY.
   3. lnxw48a1 (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Tuesday, 23-Oct-2018 16:57:13 EDT lnxw48a1

      in reply to
      @mangeurdenuage We can eliminate a lot of confusion by sticking to YYYY-MM-DD and not using MM-DD-YYYY or DD-MM-YYYY, so why not do so?
      1. mangeurdenuage (mangeurdenuage@loadaverage.org)'s status on Tuesday, 23-Oct-2018 17:08:55 EDT mangeurdenuage

         in reply to
         YYYY-MM-DD seems more natural for me. I Understand you thought process (I think) about sticking with a unique format it can be applied to a lot of things, a good example of that is the metric system. But we all know that there will be always a few people who won't change, like the US who is sticking with the imperial units.
         Or The Problem with Time & Timezones:
         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5wpm-gesOY
   4. Sorokin Alexei (xrevan86@loadaverage.org)'s status on Tuesday, 23-Oct-2018 19:38:13 EDT Sorokin Alexei

      in reply to
      @lnxw48a1 One of the best things about ISO 8601 (compared to DD.MM.YYYY) is that it is consistent with the time notation as well: YYYY > MM > DD > hh > mm > ss.