ISO Date Notation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ISO Date Notation

Charles Brockman
John Maddock wrote:
> That's a whole other topic, but I'm going to suggest we standardise
> on A4 paper sizes for our PDF's: A4 is an ISO std (unlike US letter)
> and in practice is just slightly smaller all round than US letter, which
> should keep folks on both sides of the Atlantic happy I hope!

May I suggest the adoption of the unambiguous ISO 8601 for the
representation of dates and times in all documentation?

See "A summary of the international standard date and time notation" at
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html or "ISO 8601" at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601.

For instance, on http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/ImprovingBoostDocs the
line
"(01/07/07) Initial structure of the Boost Glue docs project." would be
"(2007- 01 - 07) Initial structure of the Boost Glue docs project." or
perhaps
"(2007 - 07 - 01) Initial structure of the Boost Glue docs project."

--
Charles Brockman


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISO Date Notation

Matias Capeletto
On 7/2/07, Charles Brockman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> John Maddock wrote:
> > That's a whole other topic, but I'm going to suggest we standardise
> > on A4 paper sizes for our PDF's: A4 is an ISO std (unlike US letter)
> > and in practice is just slightly smaller all round than US letter, which
> > should keep folks on both sides of the Atlantic happy I hope!
>
> May I suggest the adoption of the unambiguous ISO 8601 for the
> representation of dates and times in all documentation?

Yep.

> See "A summary of the international standard date and time notation" at
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html or "ISO 8601" at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601.
>
> For instance, on http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/ImprovingBoostDocs the
> line
> "(01/07/07) Initial structure of the Boost Glue docs project." would be
> "(2007- 01 - 07) Initial structure of the Boost Glue docs project." or
> perhaps
> "(2007 - 07 - 01) Initial structure of the Boost Glue docs project."

I like it.
Can we use: 07-07-01 ?
I do not think the news will be news in 100 years from now ;)

Best regards
Matias

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISO Date Notation

chickenandporn
On 7/2/07, Matias Capeletto <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 7/2/07, Charles Brockman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > John Maddock wrote:
> > > That's a whole other topic, but I'm going to suggest we standardise
> > > on A4 paper sizes for our PDF's: A4 is an ISO std (unlike US letter)
> > > and in practice is just slightly smaller all round than US letter, which
> > > should keep folks on both sides of the Atlantic happy I hope!
> >
> > May I suggest the adoption of the unambiguous ISO 8601 for the
> > representation of dates and times in all documentation?
>
> Yep.
>
> > See "A summary of the international standard date and time notation" at
> > http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html or "ISO 8601" at
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601.
> >
> > For instance, on http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/ImprovingBoostDocs the
> > line
> > "(01/07/07) Initial structure of the Boost Glue docs project." would be
> > "(2007- 01 - 07) Initial structure of the Boost Glue docs project." or
> > perhaps
> > "(2007 - 07 - 01) Initial structure of the Boost Glue docs project."
>
> I like it.
> Can we use: 07-07-01 ?
> I do not think the news will be news in 100 years from now ;)

FWIW, "200x" makes sense when there's any pre-2000 news to convert,
and/or sharing space with any pre-2000 dates for any reason
(filenames, etc).  If there's no news before then that would be
converted to the newer format, the yy-mm-dd would not generate any
sorting errors.

Allan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISO Date Notation

Scott McMurray-2
In reply to this post by Matias Capeletto
On 02/07/07, Matias Capeletto <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Can we use: 07-07-01 ?
> I do not think the news will be news in 100 years from now ;)
>
I prefer 4-digit years, personally. The extra "cost" is minimal, and
it makes it much easier to realize which notation is in use.  And as
Allan Clark mentions, there are dates (in the version history and
such) that are pre-2000.

~ Scott

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISO Date Notation

Charles Brockman
Scott McMurray wrote:
> On 02/07/07, Matias Capeletto <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Can we use: 07-07-01 ?
>> I do not think the news will be news in 100 years from now ;)
>>
> I prefer 4-digit years, personally. The extra "cost" is minimal, and
> it makes it much easier to realize which notation is in use.  And as
> Allan Clark mentions, there are dates (in the version history and
> such) that are pre-2000.

"The 2000 version of ISO 8601 allowed rendition of a two-digit year
(omitting the century), but the 2004 version eliminated that option and
requires at least a four-digit year."

--
Charles Brockman


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISO Date Notation

Matias Capeletto
In reply to this post by Scott McMurray-2
On 7/2/07, Scott McMurray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 02/07/07, Matias Capeletto <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Can we use: 07-07-01 ?
> > I do not think the news will be news in 100 years from now ;)
> >
> I prefer 4-digit years, personally. The extra "cost" is minimal, and
> it makes it much easier to realize which notation is in use.

This argument was what I need. Thanks!
I will change them.

They have been change.

Do you guys think that the version of the packages are wrong to.

We are using:

boost_docs_07_07_01

I find

boost_docs_2007_07_01

a little verbose.

Regards
Matias

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISO Date Notation

Scott McMurray-2
On 02/07/07, Matias Capeletto <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Do you guys think that the version of the packages are wrong to.
>
> We are using:
> boost_docs_07_07_01
>
> I find
> boost_docs_2007_07_01
> a little verbose.
>

> On 7/2/07, Scott McMurray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I prefer 4-digit years, personally.

Another option might be boost_docs_20070701, which is ISO-compliant,
though compliance there is really not important.  It does keep the
full year I like while not being longer than the current one, but it
does lose a bit of readability.

~ Scott

P.S. I just noticed that our clients are using locales with different
date formats, a nice indication that this ISO 8601 stuff really is a
good idea ;)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISO Date Notation

Matias Capeletto
On 7/2/07, Scott McMurray <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 02/07/07, Matias Capeletto <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Do you guys think that the version of the packages are wrong to.
> >
> > We are using:
> > boost_docs_07_07_01
> >
> > I find
> > boost_docs_2007_07_01
> > a little verbose.
> >
>
> > On 7/2/07, Scott McMurray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I prefer 4-digit years, personally.
>
> Another option might be boost_docs_20070701, which is ISO-compliant,
> though compliance there is really not important.  It does keep the
> full year I like while not being longer than the current one, but it
> does lose a bit of readability.

I think I will change it to boost_docs_2007_07_01
Again because of quickly spotting the year.

Thanks you guys!
One of the objectives of the project is to showcase best practices and
that includes using existent standards. Please be around to bother me
with this kind of stuff.

Best regards
Matias

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISO Date Notation

Jeff Garland
In reply to this post by Scott McMurray-2
Scott McMurray wrote:

> On 02/07/07, Matias Capeletto <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Do you guys think that the version of the packages are wrong to.
>>
>> We are using:
>> boost_docs_07_07_01
>>
>> I find
>> boost_docs_2007_07_01
>> a little verbose.
>>
>
>> On 7/2/07, Scott McMurray <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I prefer 4-digit years, personally.
>
> Another option might be boost_docs_20070701, which is ISO-compliant,
> though compliance there is really not important.  It does keep the
> full year I like while not being longer than the current one, but it
> does lose a bit of readability.

I'd just note that from my perspective as 'the date-time guy' it's my view
that ISO was never really meant to be human readable -- it's more about making
  dates consistently computer readable.  ISO extended (2007-07-01) is more
readable for humans, but it's still easily confused (is 07 a month or a day?).
  I bet if I asked 100 people off the street what ISO date format 99 would
wonder what planet I'm from.  Really, in my view, if you want human readable
dates you do this: 2007-Jul-01.  Even non-english speakers get that the thing
in the middle is a month.

Here's another idea -- how about using 'day of year'.  So 2007-185.  ISO
compliant, shorter.  Only drawback is that it's probably a bit more obscure
what the number means.

Anyway, no matter what you do, I think you need a 4 digit year.  I think any
programmer that lived that was alive in the year 00 would know that ;-)

Jeff


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISO Date Notation

Matias Capeletto
On 7/2/07, Jeff Garland <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Scott McMurray wrote:
> > On 02/07/07, Matias Capeletto <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Do you guys think that the version of the packages are wrong to.
> >>
> >> We are using:
> >> boost_docs_07_07_01
> >>
> >> I find
> >> boost_docs_2007_07_01
> >> a little verbose.
> >>
> >
> >> On 7/2/07, Scott McMurray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> I prefer 4-digit years, personally.
> >
> > Another option might be boost_docs_20070701, which is ISO-compliant,
> > though compliance there is really not important.  It does keep the
> > full year I like while not being longer than the current one, but it
> > does lose a bit of readability.
>
> I'd just note that from my perspective as 'the date-time guy' it's my view
> that ISO was never really meant to be human readable -- it's more about making
>   dates consistently computer readable.  ISO extended (2007-07-01) is more
> readable for humans, but it's still easily confused (is 07 a month or a day?).
>   I bet if I asked 100 people off the street what ISO date format 99 would
> wonder what planet I'm from.  Really, in my view, if you want human readable
> dates you do this: 2007-Jul-01.  Even non-english speakers get that the thing
> in the middle is a month.

Good point. Maybe for the news, but I like the ISO. Is this mentioned there?

> Here's another idea -- how about using 'day of year'.  So 2007-185.  ISO
> compliant, shorter.  Only drawback is that it's probably a bit more obscure
> what the number means.

I find separates month and day easier to read.

> Anyway, no matter what you do, I think you need a 4 digit year.  I think any
> programmer that lived that was alive in the year 00 would know that ;-)

Ok.
If there are no strong arguments against it, I will like us to stick
to the ISO standard and use:

YYYY-MM-DD

Today is: 2007-07-02

With respect to the package name and the tag in the repository we will use

boost_docs_2007_07_02

or this one:

boost_docs_2007-07-02

Best regards
Matias

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISO Date Notation

chickenandporn
In reply to this post by Jeff Garland
On 7/2/07, Jeff Garland <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Scott McMurray wrote:
> > On 02/07/07, Matias Capeletto <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Do you guys think that the version of the packages are wrong to.
> >>
> >> We are using:
> >> boost_docs_07_07_01
> >>
> >> I find
> >> boost_docs_2007_07_01
> >> a little verbose.
> >>
> >
> >> On 7/2/07, Scott McMurray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> I prefer 4-digit years, personally.
> >
> > Another option might be boost_docs_20070701, which is ISO-compliant,
> > though compliance there is really not important.  It does keep the
> > full year I like while not being longer than the current one, but it
> > does lose a bit of readability.
>
> I'd just note that from my perspective as 'the date-time guy' it's my view
> that ISO was never really meant to be human readable -- it's more about making
>   dates consistently computer readable.  ISO extended (2007-07-01) is more
> readable for humans, but it's still easily confused (is 07 a month or a day?).
>   I bet if I asked 100 people off the street what ISO date format 99 would
> wonder what planet I'm from.  Really, in my view, if you want human readable
> dates you do this: 2007-Jul-01.  Even non-english speakers get that the thing
> in the middle is a month.

I would suggest one format used as consistently as possible -- one we
can read, and that the machine can parse, and then situations that are
read by both machine and human don't require choosing-rules.

Other countries (I assume you're American) are able to figure out that
the 07 is the month, just as they can figure out that in a number,
thousands are followed by hundreds, then by tens, then by ones.
Americans tend to want to reverse it from the archaic accounting
practices.

Don't say "ISO" to a guy on the street; they also don't know RFC-979,
or RFC-2822 any better than they can point out their Pectoralis Major,
but seem to be able to use it just fine.

yyyy-mmm-dd is a colloqial format; yyyy-mm-dd works fine.
yyyy-ddd is more difficult for a person to read, but yyyy-mm-dd works
fine for a parser and a person.

Allan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISO Date Notation

Matias Capeletto
In reply to this post by Matias Capeletto
> With respect to the package name and the tag in the repository we will use
>
> boost_docs_2007_07_02
>
> or this one:
>
> boost_docs_2007-07-02

Sorry... I do not know if It is clear.
This is a question.
I like the second one more. Does svn support it?

Best regards
Matias

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISO Date Notation

Jeff Garland
In reply to this post by chickenandporn
Allan Clark wrote:

> I would suggest one format used as consistently as possible -- one we
> can read, and that the machine can parse, and then situations that are
> read by both machine and human don't require choosing-rules.

No debate on that.

> Other countries (I assume you're American) are able to figure out that

Yep, I'm American.

> the 07 is the month, just as they can figure out that in a number,
> thousands are followed by hundreds, then by tens, then by ones.
> Americans tend to want to reverse it from the archaic accounting
> practices.

Well, I don't want to get into some international fight about who does what
for what reason.  It's enough to say that there are many different formats
used by different cultures for their own set of reasons.  The 'goodness' or
'badness' of these various date orderings and formats really don't matter.
The point is that people from various places can't really be sure if the 07 is
a month or a day.  Yeah, if they see enough of them so that the '01' goes
above '12' then they can reverse engineer it, but in isolation and without
training 2007-07-01 has the potential to be mis-understood by anyone that
doesn't happen to live in a country that uses iso ordering by default -- and
that's plenty.  So...my whole point is that if you're primary objective is
instant readability by the most humans then I personally don't think iso is
it.  I'm perfectly fine with 2007-07-01 since in this context it's probably
not that critical to know if 07 is a day or month.

Jeff

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISO Date Notation

chickenandporn
On 7/2/07, Jeff Garland <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Allan Clark wrote:
>
> > I would suggest one format used as consistently as possible -- one we
> > can read, and that the machine can parse, and then situations that are
> > read by both machine and human don't require choosing-rules.
>
> No debate on that.
>
> > Other countries (I assume you're American) are able to figure out that
>
> Yep, I'm American.
>
> > the 07 is the month, just as they can figure out that in a number,
> > thousands are followed by hundreds, then by tens, then by ones.
> > Americans tend to want to reverse it from the archaic accounting
> > practices.
>
> Well, I don't want to get into some international fight about who does what
> for what reason.  It's enough to say that there are many different formats
> used by different cultures for their own set of reasons.

I've found the least issues with ISO than with various
country-colloquial formats, but I've only personally been employed in
7 countries.  The dashes are different enough from colloquial formats
that assumptions are less frequent than you might think.  My limited
experience still votes for ISO as a single format usable by both
humans and parsers and yielding the lower frequency of error.  YMMV,
and I only have one virtual vote.

Allan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs