3 ms·
Yes, the sorting is wrong. That's a good point. I'm not sure why you're particularly picking on MM/DD/YYYY, saying things like "backwards places". DD/MM/YYYY d
by Thorrez 1y ago
Yes, the sorting is wrong. That's a good point.
I'm not sure why you're particularly picking on MM/DD/YYYY, saying things like "backwards places". DD/MM/YYYY doesn't sort any better. YYYY-MM-DD is the only one that sorts well. (Some people promote YYYYY-MM-DD though, which I guess is more future proof.)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jiggawatts 1y agoIt’s hard to explain in words just how frustrating this M/D/Y madness is to everyone else in the world. There is just no sane way to tell what a date is referring to if it has numbers less than 13 for the day part. It becomes a wild guess. > Some people promote YYYYY-MM-DD though, which I guess is more future proof It’s the only unambiguous, sortable, sane format and the use of anything else should be deprecated on the web.
- Thorrez 1y ago>It’s hard to explain in words just how frustrating this M/D/Y madness is to everyone else in the world. There is just no sane way to tell what a date is referring to if it has numbers less than 13 for the day part. It becomes a wild guess. Those criticism apply to both MM/DD/YYYY and DD/MM/YYYY. (MM/DD/YY and DD/MM/YY are even worse.) >> Some people promote YYYYY-MM-DD though, which I guess is more future proof >It’s the only unambiguous, sortable, sane format and the use of anything else should be deprecated on the web. Are you talking about YYYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-MM-DD? They're both unambiguous and sortable. (Not sortable with the other one though.)