Re: date formats

[David Lawyer <dave@lafn.org>]

On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 01:55:55AM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> David Lawyer wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:17:22PM -0100, Miroslav Skoric wrote:
> > > David Lawyer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I suppose it could be
> > > > <date>v2.0, YYYY MM DD
> > 
> > I retract the above statement I made.  I now realize that there is
> > really no standard date format
> 
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html
> 
> "A Summary of the International Standard Date and Time Notation"

Yes, I knew there was a "standard" but it doesn't seem to be widely
implemented.

> 
> > The international standard date notation is 
> >
> >    YYYY-MM-DD

But a lot of people will be confused by this.  If the doc is is
English, why not use the existing date format?  You may argue that we
need to automate listing docs by date.  But the present notation can
be easily sorted by year.  Is listing by date really important?  A new
doc may be in worse shape than a well written old one (where the info
in the doc is still valid).  So I still think that we should make it
easy on people and keep the existing date format.

> > For example, the fourth day of February in the year 1995 is
> > written in the standard notation as 
> >
> >    1995-02-04
Some might think this is April 2.

			David Lawyer


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org