From: sci	Date: August 16th, 2005 10:36 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Now, how do you find out what the ISO standard is for a particular thing? I'd be quite interested to know what the ISO for sizes and shapes of the numerous screwdriver heads are. Philips, torx, star, hex, flat... there's tonnes of the bastards!

	From: vexen	Date: August 17th, 2005 01:40 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I searched around until I found it; try searching the ISO's website too!

	From: shuripentu	Date: August 17th, 2005 12:20 am (UTC)		(Link)

I prefer YYYY-MM-DD myself (e.g. 2005-08-17) as numbers are universal whereas letters are language-dependent. There might still be some confused Americans, but anyone with half a brain will guess that the second number is the month from the fact that the year is clearly the first number.

From: sunflowerinrain	Date: August 17th, 2005 08:37 am (UTC)		(Link)

Seconded. Much easier to sort on, too.

From: sunflowerinrain	Date: August 17th, 2005 08:39 am (UTC)		(Link)

I've been using YYYY-MM-DD since the millennium bug hit the work-news in... oooh, must have been about 1994 :)

	From: vexen	Date: August 17th, 2005 01:41 pm (UTC)		(Link)

:p

	From: kitty_goth	Date: August 18th, 2005 07:56 am (UTC)		(Link)

YYYY-MM-DD is also acceptable as an ISO-8601 date and has advantages for sorting on.

(Cue long and bitter rant about java.lang.Date not supporting UTC dates as variant forms for its locales)

	From: whune	Date: August 19th, 2005 02:27 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	...Sweet.

If there's anything I enjoy it's my own practices being independently validated by the status quo *rolls eyes*

I've been doing this for years, it's just logical.

My only variation is I use all numbers and the 24 hour clock

Presently I'm torn between using all colans, or all periods:
Colans are more logical, but the periods are more pleasing to me on a purely aesthetic level

2005:08:19:09:25

2005.08.19.09.25

I think I lean more to artistic than logical
hmph.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: November 23rd, 2005 01:12 pm (UTC)		(Link)
YYYY MMM DD is not ISO-8601

ISO-8601 specifies only a numeric representation. Your use of an abbreviated English month name is not compliant.

Pete Forman
2005-11-23

	From: vexen	Date: December 8th, 2005 04:27 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: YYYY MMM DD is not ISO-8601

Yeah this is correct, "Jan", "Feb", "Mar" etc are language-specific and not good protocol, but I like to think that while people are getting used to ISO 8601 it makes it doubly clear what the format is.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: February 24th, 2008 07:57 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Re: YYYY MMM DD is not ISO-8601

But it's not what the format is, and people would probably end up permanently adopting the botched, non-sortable, English-specific one if it was taught that way.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: February 15th, 2007 01:10 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Re: YYYY MMM DD is not ISO-8601

Agreed.

ISO 8601 is specifically for numeric dates, and it is wrong to imply otherwise.

YYYYMMMDD does NOT sort properly, except in languages in which month abbreviations are in "alphabetical" order. "01/03/04", if YY/MM/DD, will sort correctly.

AD does NOT mean "Ad domini".

From: (Anonymous)	Date: December 25th, 2005 11:19 pm (UTC)		(Link)
Non

Ou est Satan exactement? Devrivez si-il vous plait.

	From: vexen	Date: December 25th, 2005 11:39 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: Non

Probably the same place as toothfairies and elves.