• ManixT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      For consistency, Europeans should adopt ss:mm:hh DD-MM-YYYY.

      See how ridiculous that is? ISO8601 or GTFO

      • RandomVideos@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        The european one is sorted based on importance to see. The day is more important than the month which is more important than the year. The hour is more important than the minute which is more important than the second

        • tomenzgg@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          But in any given situation where the month is important enough that I need to know it, I want to know the month regardless of the day. The 25th means fuck all to me unless I know the month, as well; whereas there are plenty of scenarios where I want to know the month but the day isn’t quite as important.

          • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Usually if someone just says the 25th that means of the current month. The month only needs to be referred to if it’s not the same as the current. (In conversation)

      • squaresinger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        At least ss:mm:hh and DD-MM-YYYY are internally consistent, even if they aren’t consistent with each other.

        MM-DD-YYYY isn’t even internally consistent.

  • Noite_Etion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    296
    ·
    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.

    • 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

      • Deestan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 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.

        • 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
              ·
              22 hours 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
            ·
            1 day 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
              ·
              22 hours 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.

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

      • tisktisk@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 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
          2 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
            ·
            2 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 😊

    • vinnymac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      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
        1 day 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
      6
      ·
      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
          ·
          2 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
            ·
            2 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.

    • uniquethrowagay@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Its the better choice for digital data I guess. In every day use, the day is the most important thing, then month, then year.

      From context, I usually know the year. Probably even the month. So I’ll use DD.MM.YYYY. If someone asks me when we’re going to meet I won’t say “twenty-twentyfive”, June, twentieth. And I’m guessing you don’t do that either.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Immediate red flag, we all know that YYYY/MM/DD is the only acceptable perfect date

    • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Actually YYYY-MM-DD is better since it can be used basically everywhere and with / it can’t be used in filenames

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      Agreed. As a nonviolent person, I’m willing to go to war over this. Can’t have two files from different years listed side by side because they were from the first day of different months. That’s anarchy.

  • SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    This fucknuts who thinks day should come before year, hah! Give me YYYY-MM-DD, because dashes are better than slashes any day of the week.

    • glibg@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      2 days ago

      This format is the best. Especially for digital file names, because sorting the files by filename also sorts them by date.

    • Psythik@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I prefer YYYY.MM.DD, because the dots look aesthetically pleasing when the date is being displayed within the vincity of a clock displaying the time digitally.

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

      Or just use ISO8601 whi uses hh:mm:ss and well it is an ISO standard, but at least DD:MM:YYYY makes more sense than what Americans are doing.

      Also 4th of july …

    • Redex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      No, because in most cases the most important information about a date is the day, then month, then year. It also matches the way we read dates. For the time it’s typically the hour, then minutes, then seconds. YYYY/MM/DD is better when naming files, but in UIs I much prefer DD/MM/YYYY, it’s just more natural to the way we read.