On Jun 19, 2008, at 22:53, Rich Teer wrote: > 2008.11 is better (less ambiguous) than 11/08, but why not stick > to the (ISO) standard way of representing dates?
However, in this context it is (part of) a name and not a date so use of ISO 8601 does not necessarily apply. Personally I like 2008.11 as a format; it invokes the idea of a version number. S.
