Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

ISO 8601 -- 1000

Expand Messages
  • g1smd_amsat_org
    [2004-11-02] Hi, Just to let you all know that we have now passed the 1000 messages mark in this forum. Keep on discussing things. It is making a difference!
    Message 1 of 24 , Nov 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      [2004-11-02]



      Hi,

      Just to let you all know that we have now passed the 1000 messages
      mark in this forum.

      Keep on discussing things. It is making a difference!

      The message archive is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ISO8601



      I see ISO 8601 mentioned in so many places now.

      Back in 1995 people would not listen to the arguments.

      Today, many will; but there are still too many that will not.


      Cheers,

      Ian.



      [2004-11-02]
    • Lyngmo Ted
      ... And in some parts of the world, the evolution is going backwards. In Sweden we ve used CCYY-MM-DD, CCYYMMDD, YY-MM-DD and YYMMDD a very long time. Those
      Message 2 of 24 , Nov 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Ian wrote:
        >
        > I see ISO 8601 mentioned in so many places now.
        >
        > Back in 1995 people would not listen to the arguments.
        >
        > Today, many will; but there are still too many that will not.

        And in some parts of the world, the evolution is going backwards. In Sweden we've used CCYY-MM-DD, CCYYMMDD, YY-MM-DD and YYMMDD a very long time. Those are the official formats here, but when you buy food today, you can't be sure how to interpret the best before date. Very annoying. :-(

        Kind regards,
        Ted Lyngmo

        Ps.
        Does anyone here have any experience with AIXs strftime() function? I don't think it conforms to neither ISO C99 (ISO/IEC 9899:1999), POSIX.2-1992 nor ISO 8601:1988.

        AIX 5L Version 5.3:

        %V Represents the week number of the year (with Monday
        as the first day of the week) as a decimal number
        (01 to 53). If the week containing January 1 has
        four or more days in the new year, then it is
        considered week 1; otherwise, it is considered week
        53 of the previous year, and the next week is week 1
        of the new year.

        2000-01-01 is therefor reported as week 53 and not week 52. This is wrong, isn't it?
      • John Steele
        It should be week 52. The assertion that it is always week 53 is wrong (sometimes it is). Better text would be: If the week containing January 1 has four or
        Message 3 of 24 , Nov 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          It should be week 52.  The assertion that it is always week 53 is wrong (sometimes it is). Better text would be:
              If the week containing January 1 has
              four or more days in the new year, then it is
              considered week 1; otherwise, it is considered the last week
              of the previous year, and the next week is week 1
              of the new year.

           
          Lyngmo Ted <ted.lyngmo@...> wrote:

          Ian wrote:
          >
          Ps.
          Does anyone here have any experience with AIXs strftime() function? I don't think it conforms to neither ISO C99 (ISO/IEC 9899:1999), POSIX.2-1992 nor ISO 8601:1988.

          AIX 5L Version 5.3:

          %V  Represents the week number of the year (with Monday
              as the first day of the week) as a decimal number
              (01 to 53). If the week containing January 1 has
              four or more days in the new year, then it is
              considered week 1; otherwise, it is considered week
              53 of the previous year, and the next week is week 1
              of the new year.

          2000-01-01 is therefor reported as week 53 and not week 52. This is wrong, isn't it?

        • Lyngmo Ted
          ... Thanks! That s what I thought. ... Looks exactly like the text I ve prepared for the bugreport. :-) Kind regards, Ted Lyngmo Lyngmo Ted wrote: Does anyone
          Message 4 of 24 , Nov 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            John Steele wrote:
            >
            > It should be week 52. The assertion that it is always week 53
            > is wrong (sometimes it is).

            Thanks! That's what I thought.

            > Better text would be:
            > If the week containing January 1 has
            > four or more days in the new year, then it is
            > considered week 1; otherwise, it is considered the last week
            > of the previous year, and the next week is week 1
            > of the new year.

            Looks exactly like the text I've prepared for the bugreport. :-)

            Kind regards,
            Ted Lyngmo


            Lyngmo Ted wrote:

            Does anyone here have any experience with AIXs strftime() function? I don't think it conforms to neither ISO C99 (ISO/IEC 9899:1999), POSIX.2-1992 nor ISO 8601:1988.

            AIX 5L Version 5.3:

            %V Represents the week number of the year (with Monday
            as the first day of the week) as a decimal number
            (01 to 53). If the week containing January 1 has
            four or more days in the new year, then it is
            considered week 1; otherwise, it is considered week
            53 of the previous year, and the next week is week 1
            of the new year.

            2000-01-01 is therefor reported as week 53 and not week 52. This is wrong, isn't it?
          • Pat Monahan
            Consider the date stamp CCYYWW which uses a week code WW Does the year only increment when the week code is week code 01 ? For example 20050101 [
            Message 5 of 24 , Nov 3, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Consider the date stamp CCYYWW which uses a week code WW
              Does the year only increment when the week code is week code " 01 "?

              For example " 20050101 " [ 01-Jan-05 ] is a Saturday. Week code " 01"
              for 2005
              does not occur until the following Monday " 20050103 " [ 03-Jan-05 ].

              Is " 200453 " the correct CCYYWW date stamp for the week that includes
              20050101 [ 01-Jan-05 ] ?
              The CCYYWW date stamp for the week that includes 20050103 [ 03-Jan-05
              ] is " 200501"

              Regards,
              Pat

              . Is the date stamp for 20050101
              On 3 Nov 2004, at 13:13, John Steele wrote:

              > It should be week 52.  The assertion that it is always week 53 is
              > wrong (sometimes it is). Better text would be:
              >     If the week containing January 1 has
              >     four or more days in the new year, then it is
              >     considered week 1; otherwise, it is considered the last week
              >     of the previous year, and the next week is week 1
              >     of the new year.
              >  
              > Lyngmo Ted <ted.lyngmo@...> wrote:
              >
              > Ian wrote:
              > >
              > Ps.
              > Does anyone here have any experience with AIXs strftime() function? I
              > don't think it conforms to neither ISO C99 (ISO/jan-C 9899:1999),
              > POSIX.2-1992 nor ISO 8601:1988.
              >
              > AIX 5L Version 5.3:
              >
              > %V  Represents the week number of the year (with Monday
              >     as the first day of the week) as a decimal number  four or more
              > days in the new year, then it is
              >     considered week 1; otherwise, it is considered week
              >     53 of the previous year, and the next week is week 1
              >     of the new year.
              >
              > 2000-01-01 is therefor reported as week 53 and not week 52. This is
              > wrong, isn't it?
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              >
              > ADVERTISEMENT
              > <image.tiff>
              > <image.tiff>
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              > • To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ISO8601/
              >  
              > • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > ISO8601-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >  
              > • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              > Service.
              >
              >
            • Lyngmo Ted
              ... Yes. Kind regards, Ted Lyngmo
              Message 6 of 24 , Nov 3, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Pat Monahan wrote:
                >
                > "20050101" [ 01-Jan-05 ] is a Saturday. Week code "01"
                > for 2005 does not occur until the following Monday "20050103"
                > [ 03-Jan-05 ].
                >
                > Is "200453" the correct CCYYWW date stamp for the week that
                > includes 20050101 [ 01-Jan-05 ] ?

                Yes.

                Kind regards,
                Ted Lyngmo
              • ivy19991231@softhome.net
                What did they used to say? Over here in the US, many people don t see a need to change yet still. I can t wait until numbers, currency notation, and date/time
                Message 7 of 24 , Nov 3, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  What did they used to say? Over here in the US, many people don't
                  see a need to change yet still. I can't wait until numbers, currency
                  notation, and date/time notation all get standardised within general
                  society. Weren't the ISO standards made for people to use as well?

                  At 2004-11-02 14:39 (UTC+0000), you wrote:



                  >[2004-11-02]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >Hi,
                  >
                  > Just to let you all know that we have now passed the 1000 messages
                  >mark in this forum.
                  >
                  >Keep on discussing things. It is making a difference!
                  >
                  >The message archive is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ISO8601
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >I see ISO 8601 mentioned in so many places now.
                  >
                  >Back in 1995 people would not listen to the arguments.
                  >
                  >Today, many will; but there are still too many that will not.
                  >
                  >
                  >Cheers,
                  >
                  >Ian.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >[2004-11-02]
                • ivy19991231@softhome.net
                  Yes. I ve heard some Swedish people say that they actually prefer DD/MM/YYYY because the majority of Europe uses it. What sense is there in that? Just because
                  Message 8 of 24 , Nov 3, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yes. I've heard some Swedish people say that they actually prefer
                    DD/MM/YYYY because the majority of Europe uses it. What sense is there in
                    that? Just because majority of people use it doesn't mean that it's the
                    most logical or even easiest. My advice: stick to YYYY-MM-DD (2000-01-01),
                    YYYYMMDD (20000101), YYYY MMMM D (2000 January 1), and YYYY MMM DD (2000
                    Jan 01). No ambiguity would be present. I would suggest nly using YYYYMMDD
                    is the situation required it and there was no workaround to use other
                    formats, as that can be hard on the eyes. Stay away from truncated-year
                    formats like YY-MM-DD, YYMMDD, YY MMM DD, as the day and year can be mixed up.

                    (Sometimes, here in the US, I saw a format of DD-MMM-YY or DD MMM
                    YY (eg. 07-SEP-99). This hasn't been changed to include a four-digit year
                    in 2000 and therefore, is just as ambiguous as MM/DD/YY! What would
                    10-Jan-01 mean? To me, it could mean 2010 (or 1910!) January 1! It could
                    mean 10 January 2001 (or 1901!) as well.)

                    At 2004-11-03 09:23 (UTC+0100), you wrote:
                    >And in some parts of the world, the evolution is going backwards. In
                    >Sweden we've used CCYY-MM-DD, CCYYMMDD, YY-MM-DD and YYMMDD a very long
                    >time. Those are the official formats here, but when you buy food today,
                    >you can't be sure how to interpret the best before date. Very annoying. :-(
                    >
                    >Kind regards,
                    >Ted Lyngmo
                  • Lyngmo Ted
                    ... Let s start by using the metric system world wide. Kind regards, Ted Lyngmo
                    Message 9 of 24 , Nov 3, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > What did they used to say? Over here in the US, many people don't
                      > see a need to change yet still. I can't wait until numbers, currency
                      > notation, and date/time notation all get standardised within general
                      > society. Weren't the ISO standards made for people to use as well?

                      :-) Yeah.

                      Let's start by using the metric system world wide.

                      Kind regards,
                      Ted Lyngmo
                    • Lyngmo Ted
                      ... There s not much sense in that. I m not even sure that it s true that the majority of Europe uses it. I ve never heard any Swedish person wanting to use
                      Message 10 of 24 , Nov 3, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > Yes. I've heard some Swedish people say that they actually prefer
                        > DD/MM/YYYY because the majority of Europe uses it.
                        > What sense is there in that?

                        There's not much sense in that. I'm not even sure that it's true that the majority of Europe uses it. I've never heard any Swedish person wanting to use that format, but on the other hand, I rarely discuss date formats with people I meet. :-)

                        For some obscure reason, the government department in charge of deciding what information that needs to be present on food packages in Sweden decided to NOT use the ISO date format on the best before label. How crazy is that when our official date formats are all ISO? I think they get a kick out of confusing people... *sigh*

                        > Stay away from truncated-year formats like YY-MM-DD, YYMMDD,
                        > YY MMM DD, as the day and year can be mixed up.

                        That's true nowadays. Some 10-15 years back, it would have been safe to use those formats in Sweden. Maybe because of YY being > 31 back then. :-)

                        Kind regards,
                        Ted Lyngmo
                      • ivy19991231@softhome.net
                        Yes. I wonder when that will happen over here still.
                        Message 11 of 24 , Nov 3, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Yes. I wonder when that will happen over here still.

                          At 2004-11-03 16:51 (UTC+0100), you wrote:
                          >:-) Yeah.
                          >
                          >Let's start by using the metric system world wide.
                          >
                          >Kind regards,
                          >Ted Lyngmo
                        • ivy19991231@softhome.net
                          Well, most people I speak to in Europe use some form of day-month-year as their date format. With words, only in Latvia and some other Eastern European nations
                          Message 12 of 24 , Nov 3, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Well, most people I speak to in Europe use some form of
                            day-month-year as their date format. With words, only in Latvia and some
                            other Eastern European nations is year-month-day used. Poland, Sweden, and
                            Denmark (and maybe Norway and Finland?) are other European countries that
                            use YYYY-MM-DD, but only with numbers. Other than that, Canada, China,
                            Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and Mongolia are the only other countries that use
                            year-month-day date formats, in some form or another (Canada uses it only
                            in numeric form, whereas all of the Asian countries mentioned above do it
                            in longform as well).

                            It never was safe to use a 2-digit year because of projected dates
                            in the future or past. Imagine someone buying a house in 1990 with a
                            15-year mortgage. Maybe their first payment would be on 90-04-30. Their
                            last would be about 15 years later, on what may look like 05-04-30. Maybe
                            it's good to use an apostrophe (') in front of all two-digit years (like
                            Timex did with an old wristwatch of mine (date format was 'YY.M-D, or
                            '99.12-31 & '00. 1- 1))?

                            At 2004-11-03 17:10 (UTC+0100), you wrote:



                            > > Yes. I've heard some Swedish people say that they actually prefer
                            > > DD/MM/YYYY because the majority of Europe uses it.
                            > > What sense is there in that?
                            >
                            >There's not much sense in that. I'm not even sure that it's true that the
                            >majority of Europe uses it. I've never heard any Swedish person wanting to
                            >use that format, but on the other hand, I rarely discuss date formats with
                            >people I meet. :-)
                            >
                            >For some obscure reason, the government department in charge of deciding
                            >what information that needs to be present on food packages in Sweden
                            >decided to NOT use the ISO date format on the best before label. How crazy
                            >is that when our official date formats are all ISO? I think they get a
                            >kick out of confusing people... *sigh*
                            >
                            > > Stay away from truncated-year formats like YY-MM-DD, YYMMDD,
                            > > YY MMM DD, as the day and year can be mixed up.
                            >
                            >That's true nowadays. Some 10-15 years back, it would have been safe to
                            >use those formats in Sweden. Maybe because of YY being > 31 back then. :-)
                            >
                            >Kind regards,
                            >Ted Lyngmo
                          • Lyngmo Ted
                            ... Yes, and that was safe back then since we always had the most significant figure first and least significant figure last when we used the format YYMMDD or
                            Message 13 of 24 , Nov 4, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > > > Stay away from truncated-year formats like YY-MM-DD, YYMMDD,
                              > > > YY MMM DD, as the day and year can be mixed up.
                              > >
                              > > That's true nowadays. Some 10-15 years back, it would have
                              > > been safe to use those formats in Sweden.
                              >
                              > It never was safe to use a 2-digit year because of projected dates
                              > in the future or past. Imagine someone buying a house in 1990 with
                              > a 15-year mortgage. Maybe their first payment would be on
                              > 90-04-30. Their last would be about 15 years later, on what
                              > may look like 05-04-30.

                              Yes, and that was safe back then since we always had the most significant figure first and least significant figure last when we used the format YYMMDD or YY-MM-DD. Some people used (and still uses) DD/MM[-[CC]YY] (spoken as "DD in MM[, [CC]YY]") in person-to-person communication, but rarely in any documents of any real importance.

                              Kind regards,
                              Ted Lyngmo
                            • piebaldconsult
                              Well the problem is that most people don t have separate modes for writing and speaking. Many teachers even encourage students to write the way you speak . I
                              Message 14 of 24 , Nov 4, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Well the problem is that most people don't have separate modes for
                                writing and speaking. Many teachers even encourage students to "write
                                the way you speak". I think we should all strive to write _better_
                                than we speak.
                                As relates to this list, I would not insist on saying, "It's 11:59",
                                I'd say "It's noon". Likewise I would say, "It's the fourth of
                                November" or "It's November fourth", leaving off the year. But when
                                writing, I would use an ISO8601 format.

                                Also, writing _better_ than you speak includes the use of a spell-
                                checker and reading what you wrote several times to look for error.
                              • g1smd_amsat_org
                                [2004-11-04] Most of the world has signed up to ISO 8601. Handy list: http://www.qsl.net/g1smd/isoimp.htm The Year was defined as CCYY in the 1988 version of
                                Message 15 of 24 , Nov 4, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  [2004-11-04]


                                  Most of the world has signed up to ISO 8601. Handy list:
                                  http://www.qsl.net/g1smd/isoimp.htm

                                  The Year was defined as "CCYY" in the 1988 version of ISO 8601. There
                                  was ambiguity in the usage of "CC" as this was NOT "century" in the
                                  proper usage of that word. In the 2000 version of ISO 8601 the year
                                  part should now be referred to as "YYYY" instead.


                                  Most of the world is now using metric, and the US is gradually
                                  adopting it too. Google for "US Metric Association" etc.


                                  Cheers,

                                  Ian.



                                  [2004-11-04]
                                • ivy19991231@softhome.net
                                  You mean some people used something like 31/12-1999 and spoke thirty-first of December, one thousand and ninty-nine ?
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Nov 4, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    You mean some people used something like 31/12-1999 and spoke
                                    'thirty-first of December, one thousand and ninty-nine'?

                                    At 2004-11-04 09:13 (UTC+0100), you wrote:
                                    >Yes, and that was safe back then since we always had the most significant
                                    >figure first and least significant figure last when we used the format
                                    >YYMMDD or YY-MM-DD. Some people used (and still uses) DD/MM[-[CC]YY]
                                    >(spoken as "DD in MM[, [CC]YY]") in person-to-person communication, but
                                    >rarely in any documents of any real importance.
                                    >
                                    >Kind regards,
                                    >Ted Lyngmo
                                  • ivy19991231@softhome.net
                                    Since many people here write better than they speak anyway, it s always encouraged to write better than yous peak here, however people still write 12/31/1999
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Nov 4, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Since many people here write better than they speak anyway, it's
                                      always encouraged to write better than yous peak here, however people still
                                      write '12/31/1999 11:59 PM'. :-(

                                      At 2004-11-04 14:04 (UTC+0000), you wrote:



                                      >Well the problem is that most people don't have separate modes for
                                      >writing and speaking. Many teachers even encourage students to "write
                                      >the way you speak". I think we should all strive to write _better_
                                      >than we speak.
                                      >As relates to this list, I would not insist on saying, "It's 11:59",
                                      >I'd say "It's noon". Likewise I would say, "It's the fourth of
                                      >November" or "It's November fourth", leaving off the year. But when
                                      >writing, I would use an ISO8601 format.
                                      >
                                      >Also, writing _better_ than you speak includes the use of a spell-
                                      >checker and reading what you wrote several times to look for error.
                                    • ivy19991231@softhome.net
                                      True, that most countries signed up to ISO 8601, but how often do you spot in general usage in business, day-to-day writing, etc.?
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Nov 4, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        True, that most countries signed up to ISO 8601, but how often do
                                        you spot in general usage in business, day-to-day writing, etc.?

                                        At 2004-11-04 17:43 (UTC+0000), you wrote:



                                        >[2004-11-04]
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >Most of the world has signed up to ISO 8601. Handy list:
                                        >http://www.qsl.net/g1smd/isoimp.htm
                                        >
                                        >The Year was defined as "CCYY" in the 1988 version of ISO 8601. There
                                        >was ambiguity in the usage of "CC" as this was NOT "century" in the
                                        >proper usage of that word. In the 2000 version of ISO 8601 the year
                                        >part should now be referred to as "YYYY" instead.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >Most of the world is now using metric, and the US is gradually
                                        >adopting it too. Google for "US Metric Association" etc.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >Cheers,
                                        >
                                        >Ian.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >[2004-11-04]
                                      • ivy19991231@softhome.net
                                        Correction (sorry): 31/12-1999 & the thirty-first of December, one thousand, nine hundred, and ninety-nine .
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Nov 4, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Correction (sorry): 31/12-1999 & 'the thirty-first of December, one
                                          thousand, nine hundred, and ninety-nine'.

                                          At 2004-11-04 22:13 (UTC-0500), you wrote:

                                          > You mean some people used something like 31/12-1999 and spoke
                                          >'thirty-first of December, one thousand and ninty-nine'?
                                          >
                                          >At 2004-11-04 09:13 (UTC+0100), you wrote:
                                          > >Yes, and that was safe back then since we always had the most significant
                                          > >figure first and least significant figure last when we used the format
                                          > >YYMMDD or YY-MM-DD. Some people used (and still uses) DD/MM[-[CC]YY]
                                          > >(spoken as "DD in MM[, [CC]YY]") in person-to-person communication, but
                                          > >rarely in any documents of any real importance.
                                          > >
                                          > >Kind regards,
                                          > >Ted Lyngmo
                                        • Lyngmo Ted
                                          ... Very close. This is a direct translation from Swedish: Thirtyfirst in twelfth, nineteenhundred(and?)ninetynine . (Trettioförsta i tolfte,
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Nov 4, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            > > Some people used (and still uses) DD/MM[-[CC]YY]
                                            > > (spoken as "DD in MM[, [CC]YY]") in person-to-person
                                            > > communication
                                            >
                                            > You mean some people used something like 31/12-1999
                                            > and spoke 'the thirty-first of December, one
                                            > thousand, nine hundred, and ninety-nine'?

                                            Very close. This is a direct translation from Swedish:
                                            "Thirtyfirst in twelfth, nineteenhundred(and?)ninetynine".
                                            (Trettioförsta i tolfte, nittonhundra-nittionio)

                                            Very non-ISO. :-)

                                            Kind regards,
                                            Ted Lyngmo
                                          • johnmsteele
                                            ... includes ... 05 ... Yes, essentially. The ISO 8601 standard ( see section 5.2.3) specifies how to determine week #1, then weeks are numbered consequtively
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Nov 5, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In ISO8601@yahoogroups.com, Pat Monahan <monahan.p@e...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Is " 200453 " the correct CCYYWW date stamp for the week that
                                              includes
                                              > 20050101 [ 01-Jan-05 ] ?
                                              > The CCYYWW date stamp for the week that includes 20050103 [ 03-Jan-
                                              05
                                              > ] is " 200501"
                                              >
                                              > Regards,
                                              > Pat
                                              >

                                              Yes, essentially. The ISO 8601 standard ( see section 5.2.3)
                                              specifies how to determine week #1, then weeks are numbered
                                              consequtively until week #1 of the following year. That may require a
                                              year to have either 52 or 53 weeks. However the "W" separator appears
                                              compulsory. Therefore proper notation for your examples would be
                                              2004W53 and 2005W01 or with full precision 2004W53-6 and 2005W01-1
                                              (The hyphen is optional, however). The fact that the "weekyear" and
                                              the "calendar year" can be different for a couple of weeks is a
                                              confusing aspect of ISO.
                                            • johnmsteele
                                              There should be some differences in style of writing and speaking as there are some differences in comprehension. I am not out to defend American style
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Nov 5, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                There should be some differences in style of writing and speaking as
                                                there are some differences in comprehension. I am not out to
                                                defend "American style" dates, but in speech, the month first sets
                                                context.

                                                When reading, our eyes can take in a line at a time, jumping ahead or
                                                beyind to establish context. As long as the month is text, and the
                                                year is four digits, humans can reliably read any date format,
                                                computers have problems with multiple parsing rules -- hence ISO.

                                                In speech, we can only react to the audio stream as it occurs (plus
                                                what we remember). It may not be obvious that a four digit number is
                                                going to be a date, as no context is established yet in the audio
                                                stream. Naming the month (as opposed to enumerating it) pretty well
                                                immediately establishes the context of a date, and the rest is easy
                                                to interpret. However, speech could also have a "preamble" that sets
                                                the context of expecting a date, I'm not implying this is the only
                                                way.

                                                --- In ISO8601@yahoogroups.com, "piebaldconsult"
                                                <PIEBALDconsult@a...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > Well the problem is that most people don't have separate modes for
                                                > writing and speaking. Many teachers even encourage students
                                                to "write
                                                > the way you speak". I think we should all strive to write _better_
                                                > than we speak.
                                                >
                                              • ivy19991231@softhome.net
                                                Oh, OK. In English we split the century and year (1999 = nineteen (hundred( and) ninety-nine ) components a lot of the time in spoken word as well. I wish it
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Nov 5, 2004
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Oh, OK. In English we split the century and year (1999 = 'nineteen
                                                  (hundred( and) ninety-nine') components a lot of the time in spoken word as
                                                  well. I wish it was more like Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, where the year
                                                  is read like a number. (Long dates go like 2000Y1M1D, where the letters
                                                  'Y', 'M', and 'D' here mean 'year', 'month', and 'day' (so, it may be like
                                                  'two thousandth year, first month, first day [of our era]' or 'year two
                                                  thousand, month one, day one'.)

                                                  At 2004-11-05 08:38 (UTC+0100), you wrote:

                                                  >Very close. This is a direct translation from Swedish:
                                                  >"Thirtyfirst in twelfth, nineteenhundred(and?)ninetynine".
                                                  >(Trettioförsta i tolfte, nittonhundra-nittionio)
                                                  >
                                                  >Very non-ISO. :-)
                                                  >
                                                  >Kind regards,
                                                  >Ted Lyngmo
                                                • ivy19991231@softhome.net
                                                  Within speech, would their be any difference if someone said the third of January, two thousand , two thousand, January three (or third) , or January (the)
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Nov 5, 2004
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Within speech, would their be any difference if someone said 'the
                                                    third of January, two thousand', 'two thousand, January three (or third)',
                                                    or 'January (the) third, two thousand'? I certainly don't see any
                                                    difference in interpretation, as in the end, it's the same date that's
                                                    heard. (Although, maybe the day-month-year example sounds best
                                                    grammatically and the year-month-day example sounds best to someone who's
                                                    copying the date or writing it. The month-day-year order, no matter what,
                                                    is illogical because it goes in no order.)

                                                    At 2004-11-05 14:46 (UTC+0000), you wrote:



                                                    >There should be some differences in style of writing and speaking as
                                                    >there are some differences in comprehension. I am not out to
                                                    >defend "American style" dates, but in speech, the month first sets
                                                    >context.
                                                    >
                                                    >When reading, our eyes can take in a line at a time, jumping ahead or
                                                    >beyind to establish context. As long as the month is text, and the
                                                    >year is four digits, humans can reliably read any date format,
                                                    >computers have problems with multiple parsing rules -- hence ISO.
                                                    >
                                                    >In speech, we can only react to the audio stream as it occurs (plus
                                                    >what we remember). It may not be obvious that a four digit number is
                                                    >going to be a date, as no context is established yet in the audio
                                                    >stream. Naming the month (as opposed to enumerating it) pretty well
                                                    >immediately establishes the context of a date, and the rest is easy
                                                    >to interpret. However, speech could also have a "preamble" that sets
                                                    >the context of expecting a date, I'm not implying this is the only
                                                    >way.
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.