But please don’t use CalVer’s so-called “standard terminology”, because having “MM” be 1–12 and “0M” 01–12 (and the same for D and mostly Y) is ridiculous, flyi

But please don’t use CalVer’s so-called “standard terminology”, because having “MM” be 1–12 and “0M” 01–12 (and the same for D and mostly Y) is ridiculous, flying in the face of the extremely well-established society-wide convention that “MM” means 01–12, and “M” 1–12. (Because of this folly, I firmly decline to cite CalVer in anything about date-based version numbers. It’s an obvious enough scheme anyway and doesn’t need a fancy name or specificationy sort of thing.)