On 09/12/2012 01:23 AM, JAMES MAJESKI wrote: > Two digit years have always been a problem. I always presume that the use two > digit years was obsolete after the Y2K publicity, but bad habits continue. > We are no longer in the era of eighty column punch cards, so there is no > excuse for two digit years. > > ISO8601 is the international standard, so it is not ambiguous. In other > formats, using four digit years and month names are not ambiguous no matter > the element order. Any other formats require a time consuming examination > for clues as to element order or an explanation from the source. > > My input data may be in any of the formats. Once I determine the order of > the elements and resolved two digit years, I can easily convert to ISO8601. > In a spreadsheet a date year is a display choice, the actual date is stored as a number relative to a 0 day. In a database, however, it depends on how the field is defined: text or Date/Datetime. AFAIK all Date/Datetime entries require a 4 digit year. The problem with a database is it may use a location specific order (Imm/dd/yyyy for US or dd/mm/yyyy otherwise) for entry and storage.
-- Jay Lozier [email protected] -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
