Vexen Crabtree 2015

vexen

Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards



  • 1
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!

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

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.

Seconded. Much easier to sort on, too.

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

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)

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.

YYYY MMM DD is not ISO-8601

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

Pete Forman
2005-11-23

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.

Re: YYYY MMM DD is not ISO-8601

(Anonymous)
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.

Re: YYYY MMM DD is not ISO-8601

(Anonymous)
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".

Non

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

Probably the same place as toothfairies and elves.

  • 1
?

Log in