4 ms·
How is it more "objectively correct" than DD-MM-YYYY?
by gtirloni 7y ago
How is it more "objectively correct" than DD-MM-YYYY?
- QuesnayJr 7y agoASCII sorting order is chronological order.
- frutiger 7y agoI would note that the first letter of "ASCII" stands for "American".
- tzs 7y agoIs there any language/locale/whatever that both (1) uses Arabic numerals and (2) does not sort the numerals in the same way ASCII does?
- QuesnayJr 7y agoYou're right. I was thinking that you need the dash to sort in the right order, but of course the dash is always in the same place in ISO 8601.
- mcrae 7y agoBecause its unambiguous -- DD-MM-YYYY could be confused for MM-DD-YYYY
- jacquesm 7y agoI personally prefer to spell out the first three letters of the name of the month to reduce ambiguity, this works well across all regions in the world I do business with.
- joering2 7y agoHow can you confuse 31-12-2019 ?
- NullPrefix 7y ago10-11-2019 and 11-10-2019
- yongjik 7y agoUnless you plan to use one format until 12th of each Month and a different format between 13th and 31st, your objection doesn't seem relevant.
- loco5niner 7y agoObviously you can't, because you cherry picked a non-confusing date. But you can easily confuse 01-02-2020 or 03-01-2020.
- rightbyte 7y agoLittle endian is obviously heretic, in left-to-right languages.
- reaperducer 7y agoHow is it more "objectively correct" than DD-MM-YYYY? Because the I in ISO means International, so it's automatically better on HN. It's why the people on HN go to International House of Pancakes so much, but wouldn't be caught dead in The Pancake House.
- timbit42 7y agoFor the same reasons the time format HH:MM:SS is objectively correct and and not HH:SS:MM, SS:MM:HH, MM:SS:HH, SS:HH:MM, or MM:HH:SS.
- gtirloni 7y agoNo, dates are for humans not computers sorting things. DD-MM-YYYY is "objectively better" because that's how most humans read dates. See where this is going?