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

RE: [ISO8601] ISO 8601 -- 1000

Expand Messages
  • ivy19991231@softhome.net
    Correction (sorry): 31/12-1999 & the thirty-first of December, one thousand, nine hundred, and ninety-nine .
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.