On 03/13/2010 02:24 PM, Ofer Inbar wrote:
Scott Brim <scott(_dot_)brim(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
These technical answers are all great "for use in Internet protocols"
[3339] but the scope of the question is web pages destined for humans to
read and understand ... and some humans don't understand them. You
could justify what's there now and ignore their problem, or (if your
goal is communication) you could figure out how to write dates in ways
that ordinary humans find unambiguous. I usually write something like
"2010 Jan 02". It's not sortable but it's understood even by non-IETFers.
I've been using YYYY-MM-DD dates everywhere I can for many years, and
the email that opened this thread was the first time I had ever heard
of anyone ever finding such a date ambiguous. Given the various
advantages of such dates, I think we need to be convinced that there's
an actual problem before considering changing them.
the nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from...
joelja(_at_)chickenhawk:~$ date --rfc-2822
Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:07:43 -0800
joelja(_at_)chickenhawk:~$ date --rfc-3339=date
2010-03-13
joelja(_at_)chickenhawk:~$ date +%s
1268525289
I know which of those I'd rather use in a script.
Humans and scripts often access the same data, BTW. Easy-to-parse
dates are advantageous. Matching international standards is also
of some value.
-- Cos
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf