- From: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
- Date: 28 Nov 2002 10:16:53 -0500
- To: "Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Cc: Mikko Rantalainen <mira@cc.jyu.fi>, www-html@w3.org, cyril2@mail.ru
"Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk> writes:
> Given that nn-nn-nnnn is ambiguous (one doesn't know which
> of the first two nn pairs is month and which is date), and
> given that nn-mmm-yyyy is (as usually written) anglo-centric,
> why not use the disambiguating syntax of the latter in
> conjunction with the non-localised nature of the former,
> as in :
>
> nn-nnn-nnnn
>
> where nn = day (1 to 31), nnn = month (001 to 012), and nnnn = year ?
You don't want to use that because it does not (ASCII) sort correctly.
Correct sorting will be the definitive virtue of YYYYMMDD through
the end of the year 9999. Then the Y10K problem will happen. :-)
-- Bill
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2002 10:17:05 UTC