On 03/13/2010 02:24 PM, Ofer Inbar wrote: > Scott Brim <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx> 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@chickenhawk:~$ date --rfc-2822 Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:07:43 -0800 joelja@chickenhawk:~$ date --rfc-3339=date 2010-03-13 joelja@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@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf