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

YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-DD-MM?

Expand Messages
  • Philip Mak
    I am configuring the time format string on my website s bulletin board, and want to make sure that it is universally understood. I found the ISO8601 website by
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I am configuring the time format string on my website's bulletin board,
      and want to make sure that it is universally understood. I found the
      ISO8601 website by typing "international date format" into Google.

      I am wondering, might some people confuse YYYY-MM-DD with YYYY-DD-MM? I
      thought that people in the UK are used to writing the date before the
      month.
    • Karl Ove Hufthammer
      ... From: Philip Mak To: Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 4:46 AM Subject: [ISO8601] YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-DD-MM?
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 5, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Philip Mak" <pmak@...>
        To: <ISO8601@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 4:46 AM
        Subject: [ISO8601] YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-DD-MM?


        > I am wondering, might some people confuse
        > YYYY-MM-DD with YYYY-DD-MM?

        No, YYYY-DD-MM is never used.

        > I thought that people in the UK are used to
        > writing the date before the month.

        No, that's the US. The UK uses:

        DD/MM/YYYY (or ISO 8601, of course)

        The US uses:

        MM/DD/YYYY (or ISO 8601)

        --
        Karl Ove Hufthammer
      • P A Hill & E V Goodall
        ... Only if you don t consider the year. One of the reasons for 8601 is to get away from local notations. 8601 picked separators that where NOT the slash for
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 6, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Philip Mak wrote:
          > I am wondering, might some people confuse YYYY-MM-DD with YYYY-DD-MM? I
          > thought that people in the UK are used to writing the date before the
          > month.

          Only if you don't consider the year. One of the reasons for 8601 is to
          get away from local notations. 8601 picked separators that where NOT
          the slash for just that reason.

          -Paul
        • bam
          I have never seen YYYY-DD-MM and doubt it is used by anyone. It has been my personal convention to begin with the year (unless it is omitted entirely) in all
          Message 4 of 4 , Sep 6, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            I have never seen YYYY-DD-MM and doubt it is used by anyone.

            It has been my personal convention to begin with the year
            (unless it is omitted entirely) in all dates that I write,
            on letters, memos, checks, etc. (I've been doing this
            since about 1968, often in the face of much opposition.
            My initial reason, aside from logic, was that computer
            file names and data fields would sort chronologically.)

            However, I have always proceeded in descending order
            (YYYY then M then DD, perhaps followed by 24-hour time
            after a decimal point), and I cannot think of any possible
            rationale for rendering a date in the order:
            largest, then smallest, then middle granularity!
            (Then again, I cannot think of any rationale for D/M/Y either. ;-)

            Of course, when the year is omitted, then there is ambiguity
            (if both numbers are no more than twelve and unequal).

            I agree it was good for 8601 to avoid using slash as a separator,
            but I consider the dash to be an unfortunate choice, since it is
            would have served well as the natural symbol for intervals.

            Bruce A. Martin


            P A Hill & E V Goodall wrote:
            >
            > Philip Mak wrote:
            > > I am wondering, might some people confuse YYYY-MM-DD with YYYY-DD-MM? I
            > > thought that people in the UK are used to writing the date before the
            > > month.
            >
            > Only if you don't consider the year. One of the reasons for 8601 is to
            > get away from local notations. 8601 picked separators that where NOT
            > the slash for just that reason.
            >
            > -Paul
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.