Tech: Date format

Subject: Tech: Date format
From: Pappy Fiddle
Date: 24 Apr 26 - 08:26 PM

In the years leading up to 2000 (some here weren't born yet) it was realized that a lot of the world's computers would choke, they weren't programmed to handle years past 1999. As part of the scramble to fix this, it was realized that year formats like 04/02/07 were ambiguous. Which is the month, which is the day? The solution to that: rather than try to get everyone to adopt a certain order like day/month/year, people should just put the year in 4 digits, the month in letters.

I recommend that the date format here be changed to show 4 digit years.

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: Howard Kaplan
Date: 24 Apr 26 - 09:28 PM

I agree, but we need to go further.

In the US, 3/4/1948 would be March 4.

In Canada, 3/4/1948 could be either March 4 or April 3, depending on whether one is using Canadian (also UK) style or US style dates -- they're both fairly common.

4 Mar 2026 is unambiguous: the 4-digit part can be only a year, and the alphabetic part can be only a month, so the shorter digital part can be only a day.

Although 2026 03 04 (however punctuated), a strictly numeric YMD format, isn't quite unambiguous, it has the advantage that sorting the strings alphanumerically puts the dates into the proper order (provided one uses leading zeroes before 1-digit numbers). It's also the ISO standard date format. If any country used a YDM format, then YMD would be ambiguous, but the Wikipedia entry List of date formats by country doesn't show any countries using YDM.

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Apr 26 - 10:51 PM

For the almost thirty years I've been at Mudcat, I've been trying to standardize the date format in thread titles to dd/mmm/yyyy
Since we have people from all over the world, it was a constant source of confusion.
Today is 24Apr2026, or thereabouts. If you get it confused, I'll assume your permission to change it.

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 25 Apr 26 - 05:36 AM

None of us will be around when 2096 starts getting mixed up with Mudcat's first posts of 1996, so the 'yyyy' format is a non-story. 'yy' will do fine up till then. I agree that the month in letters would be be better

If a logical numeric system is desired then
    'yyyy/mm/dd/hh*/mm/ss'
would seem to be the way to go.


*In 24 hour format

DC

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 30 Apr 26 - 12:59 PM

As usual, there's an XKCD for that:

ISO 8601

And for completeness:

Datetime

In both cases, check the mouseover. We now return you to your abnormal programme.

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: Beer
Date: 30 Apr 26 - 02:16 PM

In Quebec we are M/D/Y Why, no idea. I always get it mixed up. But the rest of Canada I do believe it is D/M/Y
Adrien

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: GUEST
Date: 01 May 26 - 07:59 PM

In a simple number like 38294, the 4 represents ones. The 3 means 3 10K's. The larger bits are on the left. It seems like a likeable convention.

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 May 26 - 04:09 PM

Doug:

If a logical numeric system is desired then
    'yyyy/mm/dd/hh*/mm/ss'
would seem to be the way to go.

How is a system with two meanings for 'mm' logical?

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 May 26 - 04:19 PM

Maybe momo and mimi wouldmake more sense? :-D

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 May 26 - 04:21 PM

In fact we could probably make a folk song containing a refrain

yeyeyeye momo dada hoho mimi sese

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 May 26 - 04:36 PM

How is a system with two meanings for 'mm' logical?

I assumed that people would be clever enough to realise that the 'mm' that comes between the year and the day, is not the same as the'mm' that comes between the hour and the second. Obviously, in your case, I overstimayed the level of intelligence.

Anyway, the letters yyyy/mm/dd/hh*/mm/ss' are judt descriptors for the logical numeric sytem.

DC

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 May 26 - 04:40 PM

Damn! It posted before I had proofread it. Please excuse the typos.

DdC

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 May 26 - 04:59 PM

I assumed that people would be clever enough to realise that the 'mm' that comes between the year and the day, is not the same as the'mm' that comes between the hour and the second

Why should that make any difference when one whole country insists that day, month, and year should not come in a logical order?

Fortunately I don't overestimate your level.

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: GerryM
Date: 02 May 26 - 05:54 PM

"In fact we could probably make a folk song containing a refrain

"yeyeyeye momo dada hoho mimi sese"

And then we could attribute it to the Hopi tribe of Native Americans, and people could engage in endless speculation about its origins.

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 02 May 26 - 06:34 PM

I have Never had a problem.

You use what is logical. LOC works well. UK is confused. The Germans are dense with data. Deal with it!

Sincerely,
Gargoyle
It is a blessing to be dyslexic and not anal.

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 May 26 - 06:56 PM

What point are you trying to make Nigel?

The fact that "one whole country insists that day, month, and year should not come in a logical order?" is the very reaxon I suggested a logical numeric system.

'day/month/year', used in the UK and parts of Canada, is more logical than 'month/day/year', preferred in the USA, as each term is for a progressively longer period. However, 'hours/minutes/seconds' are for progressively shorter periods. That is why 'yyyy/mnth mnth/dd/hh/min min/ss' would be the way to go.

Can anyone suggest a logical way of dealing with BCE/CE?

DC

Subject: RE: Tech: Date format
From: BobL
Date: 03 May 26 - 02:39 AM

BCE/CE: the obvious logical way is to make the year a signed integer. Can't see it catching on though, especially as only the year field would be signed. e.g. -55/03/15.