Date formats

[nq:1]Is there a proper standard for the layout of dates? It seems that the 'standard' used in the US is, ... October, 2005". To me the "US" version seems illogical - it's rather like writing numbers as Tens, Hundreds and Units.[/nq]
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.

Regar

Frank Erskine emailed this:
[nq:1]Is there a proper standard for the layout of dates? It seems that the 'standard' used in the US is, ... October, 2005". To me the "US" version seems illogical - it's rather like writing numbers as Tens, Hundreds and Units.[/nq]
I agree it's illogical. The logical format is high to low, which is what the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 8

[nq:1]Frank Erskine emailed this:[/nq]
[nq:2]Is there a proper standard for the layout of dates? ... it's rather like writing numbers as Tens, Hundreds and Units.[/nq]
[nq:1]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 a

[nq:1]Is there a proper standard for the layout of dates? It seems that the 'standard' used in the US is, ... October, 2005". To me the "US" version seems illogical - it's rather like writing numbers as Tens, Hundreds and Units.[/nq]
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 F

[nq:2]Is there a proper standard for the layout of dates? ... it's rather like writing numbers as Tens, Hundreds and Units.[/nq]
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 yy-mm-dd so that they sort in date order.
[nq:1]Who ever said that language had anything to do with log

[nq:1]I agree it's illogical. The logical format is high to low, which is what the International Organization for Standardization (ISO ... 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[/nq]
Is the 59 here meant to be in sixtieths of a second?

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew Huntbach emailed this:
[nq:2]I agree it's illogical. The logical format is high to ... 2005-10-27 23:12:58 Or to any degree of precision: 2005-10-27 23:12:58:59[/nq]
[nq:1]Is the 59 here meant to be in sixtieths of a second?[/nq]
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 sec

[nq:1]Matthew Huntbach emailed this:[/nq]
[nq:2]Is the 59 here meant to be in sixtieths of a second?[/nq]
[nq:1]No. Apologies it was late and I got it wrong. The precision can be to any level but specified as ... decimal point. E.G. 2005-10-27 23:12:58.999 999 milliseconds Or taken perhaps a bit far... E.G. 2005-10-27 23:12:58.100 1 nanosecond[/nq]
Shouldn't that be "2005-10-27 23:12:5

Einde O'Callaghan emailed this:
[nq:2]Matthew Huntbach emailed this: No. Apologies it was late and ... perhaps a bit far... E.G. 2005-10-27 23:12:58.100 1 nanosecond[/nq]
[nq:1]Shouldn't that be "2005-10-27 23:12:58.001 1 nanosecond"?[/nq]
Yes. Thanks for pointing this out.

[nq:1]Einde O'Callaghan emailed this:[/nq]
[nq:2]Shouldn't that be "2005-10-27 23:12:58.001 1 nanosecond"?[/nq]
[nq:1]Yes. Thanks for pointing this out.[/nq]
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