• Noite_Etion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    298
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Waiting for the ISO 8601 & 9001 gang to show up and promote YYYY-MM-DD.

    Edit: That took seconds, a very punctual bunch.

      • Deestan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        3 days ago

        After all the self-important blowhards in the committe were satisified that they had put their fingerprint on the ISO8601 document with bullshit like “year-month-week” format support and signed off, they went home.

        The rest stayed behind, waited a few minutes to be safe, and then quickly made RFC3339 like a proper standard.

        This is what RFC3339 vs ISO8601 feels like.

        • kata1yst@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Let’s not forget that technically you have to pay for ISO8601, despite it being nearly useless as a standard because it allows several incompatible formats to coexist.

          Fucking wild.

          • Deestan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 days ago

            While a fucking stupid concept, it’s nice that this particular format has a monetary deterrent.

          • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Only if you want to say you have the certification for it, you can use it if you want, that is fine

        • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          ISO8601 is YYYY-MM-DD nothing to do with weeks and isn;t the only difference of RFC3339 that you can use a space instead of a T in between the date and time? Also RFC3339 is only an internet standard while ISO is a generally international standard?

            • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              Yeah I know, but it also has a different use case. As far as I know RFC3339 is mostly used for programming while ISO8601 is the standard for international communication and I wish people would use it more. I have processed American invoices in the wrong month because of their date structure. I have no reason to it, but I always write my date ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD)

          • Deestan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            No idea what you based those claims on, but the spec itself (I have the pdf) and Wikipedia’s summary disagree. ISO8601 allows for YYY-MM-DD yes but it allows for a bunch of silly stuff.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601

            Both “2025-W24-4” and “2025‐163” are valid representations of today’s date in ISO8601.

            (Also the optional timezone makes it utterly useless.)

            • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              The omitting of timezones doesn’t matter to a vast majority of the world, since most countries only have one time zone so I don’t see a reason why that is relevant in most use cases.

              ISO is a general standard, it’s in the name and the RFC is created for the internet, that is also in the name/description of the RF.

              Using 2025-164 can be handy, I actually use the day of the year to check what invoices from previous year are open since those are the invoices that are due 164 days or more.

      • tisktisk@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Anyone help enlighten me about whatever this and unix epoch are getting at? Are these really more specific/better than iso 8601 and why specifically?

        • kata1yst@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Happily!

          So, first epoch time. It’s a pretty robust standard, covers many use cases, has few edge cases… but it’s specifically for machine usage, since it’s not human readable and it’s not reversible into the past (pre-1970).

          ISO 8601 (depending on the annum), by the text of the documentation, these are all valid dates:

          • 2007-04-05T14:30
          • 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
          • 2007-04-05T14:30Z
          • 200704051430
          • 07-04-05T14:30
          • 2007-95T14:30

          Etc.

          RFC 3339 (& RFC 9557, it’s newest modification) is actually a subset of ISO 8601 and is far more prescriptive. For example you must have a timezone designator. You must have a separator between the date and time. You must use a dash between date elements and a colon between time elements. You can easily add standardized subseconds.

          • 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
          • 2007-04-05 14:30Z

          This means that RFC 3339 is much easier to parse and use by both machines and humans.

          This page (reddit, I know…) has a great summary, and so in the interest of knowledge and attribution I’ll link it: https://www.reddit.com/r/ISO8601/comments/p572xy/rfc_3339_versus_iso_8601/

          This website allows you to more directly compare the two interactively. https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/

          • tisktisk@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 days ago

            This is delicious, and I can’t say thank you enough. I like this a lot. If anyone has any insight on more superior standards or subsets of these, please inform me. This made my day tho 😊

    • slaacaa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Btw this is how it’s used in some countries (eg., Hungary, Japan, China, and a few others from Asia). All other date formats are very strange and confusing for us

    • vinnymac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      3 days ago

      I’m now imagining a child who must write 2026-05-10T10:06:09.426792Z on all of their tests.

      • littleonescared@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        They should also add a timezone since most of us don’t live at UTC zero timezones -> 2012-12-28T18:12:33+09:00

      • Artyom@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        It’s a flexible standard. 2026-05-10T10:06:09.426792Z, 2026-05-10 10:06:09.426792Z, 2026-05-10 10:06:09.426792 , and 2026-05-10 all conform to the standard.

    • Owl@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      Hello from Hungary ! We should also democratize the Surname GivenName format

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Anyone that gives me a document or receipt or invoice with a date formatted DD-MM-YYYY should have a tire iron swung at their thighs

      Multiple swings if they can’t decide on using DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY or DD-MM-YY or MM-DD-YY or YY-MM-DD or YY-DD-MM

      • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I rather have somebody write their invoices at DD-MM-YYYY cause there is a bigger chance it will most likely not be an invoice from a North American company which notriously cannot make proper invoices and most software that actually scans and processes invoices is based on the European standaard DD-MM-YYYY or on ISO8601.

    • tisktisk@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      As a big ISO 8601 guy myself, I request explanation of this 9001 addition? Never heard of it till now and am optimistic

        • tisktisk@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Were you mostly joking or is there a utility to this? Genuinely curious as someone that finds confusing things slightly more memorable in a really backwards way

          • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 days ago

            Yes I was joking, get a random timestamp in this format and you have no idea what it’s referring to.

            DD:HH:MM:SS:mm:yy is even better because it could be a MAC address.