Perfect date

[beigeagenda@lemmy.ca]

I prefer the alphabetical date format DD-HH-MM-SS-mm-yy for maximum confusion

[58008@lemmy.world]

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.

[habahnow@sh.itjust.works]

I see it now FML. Editing my comment.

[nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org]

ISO 8601/RFC-3339 (Unix Epoch also acceptable) gang reporting in.

[nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org]

Seconded. Not coming up with much when trying to find out more about it.

[samsy@lemmy.ml]

Upvoted, because never blame someone who learned something new.

YYYY-MM-DD is for Files

DD.MM.YYYY is for writing a date down.

[deestan@lemmy.world]

While a fucking stupid concept, it's nice that this particular format has a monetary deterrent.

[railcar8095@lemm.ee]

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.

[mutilated_sphincter@lemmy.world]

Quality Management Systems, unsure what it has to do with 8601, but guess the fanboy venn diagram overlaps

[tisktisk@piefed.social]

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?

[shutz@lemmy.ca]

What if the day in question isn't a Monday?

[kolanaki@pawb.social]

Perfect date: We stay in bed snuggling while watching furry movies, meme compilations, or playing video games.

[tisktisk@piefed.social]

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

[glibg@lemmy.ca]

This format is the best. Especially for digital file names, because sorting the files by filename also sorts them by date.

[splashjackson@lemmy.ca]

A true professional. Have an upvote.

[beigeagenda@lemmy.ca]

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:yy is even better because it could be a MAC address.

[phoenixz@lemmy.ca]

Immediate red flag, we all know that YYYY/MM/DD is the only acceptable perfect date

[kata1yst@sh.itjust.works]

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/

[phantomwise@lemmy.ml]

I thought that was unix time /s

[nexguy@lemmy.world]

Preeeety sure it's stardate.