date formats (was Re: Single Point of Weakness is in the Work s.Thank you Major Tom.)

Trei, Peter ptrei at rsasecurity.com
Wed Apr 23 08:33:09 PDT 2003


> Sunder[SMTP:sunder at sunder.net]
> 
> 
> Guys, let's please change the subject from now on when we are no longer
> talking about the original issues.
> 
> 
> One marketing vp at an old little hole in the wall company used to date
> things the european way on purpose, so as to look more sophisticated or
> some nonsense.
> 
> Funny how that didn't save the company when the bubble burst.
> 
> I've always preferred YYYY.MM.DD, this way you can sort things very
> easily.  If you write the names of the months, it doesn't translate well
> to other languages, though it may be similar, *AND* more importantly from
> a geek perspective, if you do a sort, April shows as the 1st month of the
> year, before January - not good.  
> 
> If you do the reverse DD.MM.YYYY you can't sort it either since the 1st
> day of every month shows up 1st.  Dumb.  Friendly to non-geeks, but dumb.
> 
> The worst annoyance I've seen is using Unix time as a timestamp on log
> dates.  It's the most unreadable of all formats.  Sorts nicely though, but
> what a bitch to read.  (Unix time being the number of seconds in decimal
> since 1/1/1970.)
> 
> 
I use YYYYMMDD when automatic sorting may be required, for 
just that reason.

In all others situations, I use DD name_of_month YYYY to 
disambiguate the format. I grew up in Europe, and moved 
back to the States after college. I've had long exposure 
to both formats, and don't automatically assume one or 
the other.

It's gotten worse recently. Since the turn of the century, 
all three fields are frequently below 13.

04/05/03 or 05/04/03 are very ambiguous.
04/05/2003 is still confusing.
20030405 is good for computers
5 April 2003 is unambiguous.

Peter Trei





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list