Steven M. Christey (2003-06-10 17:00Z) wrote: > >> Vendor has been contacted on 01/06/2003 and fix is available from cvs at > >> http://www.mnogosearch.org. > > 5 months... This is full disclosure? > > Maybe that date is really June 1, 2003, since many countries list the > month second, not first. > > By the way, these DD/MM/YYYY or MM/DD/YYYY formats often make it > difficult to quantify how much notice a vendor really had before the > issue was published. This has affected the accuracy of my past > aborted attempts to figure out how long vendors *really* take to fix > issues, and it may hamper any future attempts. > > Using formats like YYYY/MM/DD or "Month DD, YYYY" generally seems to > address the confusion.
The former is open to confusion. There is an ISO standard. Use it or write datestamps in long date/time formats (like the second example) that are not open to incorrect interpretation. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html BNF of ISO 8601 is here: http://www.opengroup.org/austin/mailarchives/austin-group-l/msg00441.html And then there's the "my timezone is famous, I don't even have to specify it" syndrome. No, we really don't know what timezone you're in (or think you're in) unless the message is about an event at a particular location. And does someone in South Africa really want to look up the semantics of the U.S. MDT timezone? Use <+|->xx[:xx] and avoid the confusion. -- Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. --Rumsfeld, 2003-04-11 _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
