Which part of "more like" did you miss?

Fixing seconds precision to anything is unnecessary ... with a decimal to
separate the fractional portion and a space to end it, it can be as short or
long as you wish -- a parser does not need that number to have 0 padding at
the end ... comment irrelevant.

The bracketed GMT+x is for the sake of comparing times made by systems that
don't have a friendly timezone system for conversion.  That said, preference
would be to store times in GMT and not need the spec ... (GMT+00) ... but
that's not as easy as it sounds sometimes, so the option was left.

Yes, I thought of those.

And yes, its sortable -- within a timezone.

Petr Novotny wrote:

> > Are you asking more for something like:
> >
> > 2000/07/31 06:02:10.42 (GMT+05)
> >
> > This has always been the date format I've prefered ... its sortable
> > (as the year comes first -- although its quite narrow-minded of me to
> > not allow for 5 digit dates),
> It's not sortable:
> 1. '+' precedes '-' in ASCII. Yuck.
> 2. How do you compare (cutting unimportant stuff) 17:30 (GMT+1)
> and 18:00 (GMT+0)? Go figure.
> 3. Fixing seconds precision to two decimals is wrong, too.

Reply via email to