Perfect date
-
After all the self-important blowhards in the committe were satisified that they had put their fingerprint on the ISO8601 document with bullshit like "year-month-week" format support and signed off, they went home.
The rest stayed behind, waited a few minutes to be safe, and then quickly made RFC3339 like a proper standard.
This is what RFC3339 vs ISO8601 feels like.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Let's not forget that technically you have to pay for ISO8601, despite it being nearly useless as a standard because it allows several incompatible formats to coexist.
Fucking wild.
-
MM/DD/YY for me.
Edit: I learned something new today.
I'm giving you a pity upvote lol
-
DD-MM-YYYY-HH-MM-SS
Makes no sense!
I prefer the alphabetical date format
DD-HH-MM-SS-mm-yyfor maximum confusion -
This post did not contain any content.
When talking about the date with another human, DD/MM (+YYYY if required); when doing anything related to the sorting of files by date, YYYY/MM/DD.
-
The O is for the kind of whooshing sound
I see it now FML. Editing my comment.
-
Waiting for the ISO 8601 & 9001 gang to show up and promote YYYY-MM-DD.
Edit: That took seconds, a very punctual bunch.
ISO 8601/RFC-3339 (Unix Epoch also acceptable) gang reporting in.
-
As a big ISO 8601 guy myself, I request explanation of this 9001 addition? Never heard of it till now and am optimistic
Seconded. Not coming up with much when trying to find out more about it.
-
MM/DD/YY for me.
Edit: I learned something new today.
Upvoted, because never blame someone who learned something new.
YYYY-MM-DD is for Files
DD.MM.YYYY is for writing a date down.
-
Let's not forget that technically you have to pay for ISO8601, despite it being nearly useless as a standard because it allows several incompatible formats to coexist.
Fucking wild.
While a fucking stupid concept, it's nice that this particular format has a monetary deterrent.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm the only one annoyed about DD/MM/YYYY not being a date, but a date "format"?
Not only it's a recycled joke, it doesn't even make sense.
-
As a big ISO 8601 guy myself, I request explanation of this 9001 addition? Never heard of it till now and am optimistic
Quality Management Systems, unsure what it has to do with 8601, but guess the fanboy venn diagram overlaps
-
RFC 3339 if you please. Let's be prescriptive.
Anyone help enlighten me about whatever this and unix epoch are getting at?
Are these really more specific/better than iso 8601 and why specifically? -
For computing or sorting purposes, YYYY-MM-DD is best. But in day to day writing a date, I prefer DD-MON-YYYY.
What if the day in question isn't a Monday?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Perfect date: We stay in bed snuggling while watching furry movies, meme compilations, or playing video games.
-
I prefer the alphabetical date format
DD-HH-MM-SS-mm-yyfor maximum confusionWere you mostly joking or is there a utility to this? Genuinely curious as someone that finds confusing things slightly more memorable in a really backwards way
-
This fucknuts who thinks day should come before year, hah!
Give me YYYY-MM-DD, because dashes are better than slashes any day of the week.This format is the best. Especially for digital file names, because sorting the files by filename also sorts them by date.
-
This format is the best. Especially for digital file names, because sorting the files by filename also sorts them by date.
A true professional. Have an upvote.
-
Were you mostly joking or is there a utility to this? Genuinely curious as someone that finds confusing things slightly more memorable in a really backwards way
Yes I was joking, get a random timestamp in this format and you have no idea what it's referring to.
DD:HH:MM:SS:mm:yyis even better because it could be a MAC address. -
This post did not contain any content.
Immediate red flag, we all know that YYYY/MM/DD is the only acceptable perfect date
-
Anyone help enlighten me about whatever this and unix epoch are getting at?
Are these really more specific/better than iso 8601 and why specifically?wrote on last edited by [email protected]Happily!
So, first epoch time. It's a pretty robust standard, covers many use cases, has few edge cases... but it's specifically for machine usage, since it's not human readable and it's not reversible into the past (pre-1970).
ISO 8601 (depending on the annum), by the text of the documentation, these are all valid dates:
- 2007-04-05T14:30
- 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
- 2007-04-05T14:30Z
- 200704051430
- 07-04-05T14:30
- 2007-95T14:30
Etc.
RFC 3339 (& RFC 9557, it's newest modification) is actually a subset of ISO 8601 and is far more prescriptive. For example you must have a timezone designator. You must have a separator between the date and time. You must use a dash between date elements and a colon between time elements. You can easily add standardized subseconds.
- 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
- 2007-04-05 14:30Z
This means that RFC 3339 is much easier to parse and use by both machines and humans.
This page (reddit, I know...) has a great summary, and so in the interest of knowledge and attribution I'll link it: https://www.reddit.com/r/ISO8601/comments/p572xy/rfc_3339_versus_iso_8601/
This website allows you to more directly compare the two interactively.
https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/
