| Author |
Message |
Frank Erskine
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:48 pm
Post subject: Date formats |
|
|
Is there a proper standard for the layout of dates?
It seems that the 'standard' used in the US is, for example
"October 27, 2005", hence the expression "9/11", whereas in the UK
it's usually "27 October, 2005".
To me the "US" version seems illogical - it's rather like writing
numbers as Tens, Hundreds and Units.
--
Frank Erskine
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Frank Erskine
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:32 am
Post subject: Re: Date formats |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:24:00 GMT, MS
<matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Frank Erskine emailed this:
Is there a proper standard for the layout of dates?
It seems that the 'standard' used in the US is, for example
"October 27, 2005", hence the expression "9/11", whereas in the UK
it's usually "27 October, 2005".
To me the "US" version seems illogical - it's rather like writing
numbers as Tens, Hundreds and Units.
I agree it's illogical. The logical format is high to low, which is what
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 8601) specifies.
Today would be: 2005-10-27. This format is becoming popular on the net and
with scientists.
Personally I'd prefer to read low to high, to make it easier to choose |
your appropriate level of precision, i.e. 27·10·2005, or to make it
more 'human' 27(th) October 2005...
--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Einde O'Callaghan
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:48 am
Post subject: Re: Date formats |
|
|
Frank Erskine wrote:
| Quote: | Is there a proper standard for the layout of dates?
It seems that the 'standard' used in the US is, for example
"October 27, 2005", hence the expression "9/11", whereas in the UK
it's usually "27 October, 2005".
To me the "US" version seems illogical - it's rather like writing
numbers as Tens, Hundreds and Units.
Who ever said that language had anything to do with logic? In Germans, |
for example, three-figure numbers are expressed as Hundreds, Units and Tens.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
P.S. BTW in Britain the modern standard is "27 October 2005" - i.e.
without a comma.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MS
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:24 am
Post subject: Re: Date formats |
|
|
Frank Erskine emailed this:
| Quote: | Is there a proper standard for the layout of dates?
It seems that the 'standard' used in the US is, for example
"October 27, 2005", hence the expression "9/11", whereas in the UK
it's usually "27 October, 2005".
To me the "US" version seems illogical - it's rather like writing
numbers as Tens, Hundreds and Units.
|
I agree it's illogical. The logical format is high to low, which is what
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 8601) specifies.
Today would be: 2005-10-27. This format is becoming popular on the net and
with scientists.
You may also add a time stamp to the date.
E.G. 2005-10-27 23:12
With seconds: 2005-10-27 23:12:58
Or to any degree of precision: 2005-10-27 23:12:58:59
You may also add a T to make the time stamp one string with no spaces,
like this:
2005-10-27T23:12
If no time zone is specified, a local time is assumed, to specify UTC/GMT
a 'Z' is added:
2005-10-27 16:30Z
Or a time zone like this:
2005-10-27 16:30+01:00
2005-10-27 16:30-05:00
You could even have 2005-10-27T23:12:58:59+01:00 which is precise but
reads nastily.
MS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Mountifield
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:32 am
Post subject: Re: Date formats |
|
|
In article <3sd2ukFnr3l7U1@individual.net>,
Einde O'Callaghan <einde.ocallaghan@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
| Quote: | Frank Erskine wrote:
Is there a proper standard for the layout of dates?
It seems that the 'standard' used in the US is, for example
"October 27, 2005", hence the expression "9/11", whereas in the UK
it's usually "27 October, 2005".
To me the "US" version seems illogical - it's rather like writing
numbers as Tens, Hundreds and Units.
|
I agree. I loathe mm/dd/yy representation. However, dd/mm/yy (which I do
use) isn't consistent with hh:mm:ss either. If naming files and folders,
I usually use yyyy-mm-dd so that they sort in date order.
| Quote: | Who ever said that language had anything to do with logic? In Germans,
for example, three-figure numbers are expressed as Hundreds, Units and Tens.
|
That's only the way they are expressed in speech or in text. They don't
write "hundert-vier-und-neunzig" as 149.
Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Fawthrop
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:12 pm
Post subject: Re: Date formats |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:48:31 +0000 (UTC), Frank Erskine
<frank.erskine@btinternet.com> wrote:
| Is there a proper standard for the layout of dates?
| It seems that the 'standard' used in the US is, for example
| "October 27, 2005", hence the expression "9/11", whereas in the UK
| it's usually "27 October, 2005".
| To me the "US" version seems illogical - it's rather like writing
| numbers as Tens, Hundreds and Units.
Yes there is one standard for each country, and IIRC some have two. :-(
As we are posting to a uk.* newsgroup the correct format is dd/mm/yy.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 2:35 pm
Post subject: Re: Date formats |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, MS wrote:
| Quote: | I agree it's illogical. The logical format is high to low, which is what the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO 8601) specifies. Today
would be: 2005-10-27. This format is becoming popular on the net and with
scientists.
You may also add a time stamp to the date.
E.G. 2005-10-27 23:12
With seconds: 2005-10-27 23:12:58
Or to any degree of precision: 2005-10-27 23:12:58:59
|
Is the 59 here meant to be in sixtieths of a second?
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MS
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Date formats |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach emailed this:
| Quote: | On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, MS wrote:
I agree it's illogical. The logical format is high to low, which is
what the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 8601)
specifies. Today would be: 2005-10-27. This format is becoming popular
on the net and with scientists.
You may also add a time stamp to the date.
E.G. 2005-10-27 23:12
With seconds: 2005-10-27 23:12:58
Or to any degree of precision: 2005-10-27 23:12:58:59
Is the 59 here meant to be in sixtieths of a second?
|
No. Apologies it was late and I got it wrong.
The precision can be to any level but specified as a fraction of a second
and separated from the seconds by a decimal point.
E.G. 2005-10-27 23:12:58.999 -- 999 milliseconds
Or taken perhaps a bit far...
E.G. 2005-10-27 23:12:58.1000000000 -- 1 nanosecond |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Einde O'Callaghan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:41 am
Post subject: Re: Date formats |
|
|
MS wrote:
| Quote: | Matthew Huntbach emailed this:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, MS wrote:
I agree it's illogical. The logical format is high to low, which is
what the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 8601)
specifies. Today would be: 2005-10-27. This format is becoming
popular on the net and with scientists.
You may also add a time stamp to the date.
E.G. 2005-10-27 23:12
With seconds: 2005-10-27 23:12:58
Or to any degree of precision: 2005-10-27 23:12:58:59
Is the 59 here meant to be in sixtieths of a second?
No. Apologies it was late and I got it wrong.
The precision can be to any level but specified as a fraction of a
second and separated from the seconds by a decimal point.
E.G. 2005-10-27 23:12:58.999 -- 999 milliseconds
Or taken perhaps a bit far...
E.G. 2005-10-27 23:12:58.1000000000 -- 1 nanosecond
|
Shouldn't that be "2005-10-27 23:12:58.0000000001 -- 1 nanosecond"?
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MS
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Date formats |
|
|
Einde O'Callaghan emailed this:
| Quote: | MS wrote:
Matthew Huntbach emailed this:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, MS wrote:
I agree it's illogical. The logical format is high to low, which is
what the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 8601)
specifies. Today would be: 2005-10-27. This format is becoming
popular on the net and with scientists.
You may also add a time stamp to the date.
E.G. 2005-10-27 23:12
With seconds: 2005-10-27 23:12:58
Or to any degree of precision: 2005-10-27 23:12:58:59
Is the 59 here meant to be in sixtieths of a second?
No. Apologies it was late and I got it wrong.
The precision can be to any level but specified as a fraction of a
second and separated from the seconds by a decimal point.
E.G. 2005-10-27 23:12:58.999 -- 999 milliseconds
Or taken perhaps a bit far...
E.G. 2005-10-27 23:12:58.1000000000 -- 1 nanosecond
Shouldn't that be "2005-10-27 23:12:58.0000000001 -- 1 nanosecond"?
|
Yes. Thanks for pointing this out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Burke
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:42 pm
Post subject: Re: Date formats |
|
|
MS wrote:
| Quote: | Einde O'Callaghan emailed this:
Shouldn't that be "2005-10-27 23:12:58.0000000001 -- 1 nanosecond"?
Yes. Thanks for pointing this out.
|
A better format would be 2005-10-27 23:12:58.1e-9. If you understand the
nanosecond, you'll understand the exponent format too, and won't have to
bother counting the zeroes.
Paul Burke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CV
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:44 pm
Post subject: Re: Date formats |
|
|
Paul Burke wrote:
| Quote: | MS wrote:
Einde O'Callaghan emailed this:
Shouldn't that be "2005-10-27 23:12:58.0000000001 -- 1 nanosecond"?
Yes. Thanks for pointing this out.
A better format would be 2005-10-27 23:12:58.1e-9.
|
No, that would mean 58.1 nanoseconds, if anything. It is not very clear
whether the e-9 refers to the whole string 23:12:58.1 or just a part of
it, and what part.
23:12:58+1e-9 would be clear.
If you understand the
| Quote: | nanosecond, you'll understand the exponent format too, and won't have to
bother counting the zeroes.
|
true
CV |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in