+1. This is the only way that sorts properly, so the only one that makes sense.
David On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Marshall Eubanks <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mar 13, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > >> >> I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out >> dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates >> that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? >> >> > > I would disagree. This follows an ISO standard, ISO 8601, and also happens > to sort properly (in time order). > > From http://www.iso.org/iso/date_and_time_format > > ISO 8601 advises numeric representation of dates and times on an > internationally agreed basis. It represents elements from the largest to the > smallest element: year-month-day: > • Calendar date is the most common date representation. It is: > YYYY-MM-DD > > where YYYY is the year in the Gregorian calendar, MM is the month of the > year between 01 (January) and 12 (December), and DD is the day of the month > between 01 and 31. > > Example: 2003-04-01 represents the first day of April in 2003. > > > > So, 2010-01-02 is January 2, 2010. > > > > Regards > > Marshall > > > >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
