Re: a human-eye date format everyone can love

Stephen Tweedie wrote:

>Hi,
>
>On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 08:06:55PM +0200, Hontvari Jozsef <hontvari@solware.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I would shorten the time zone. As we have discussed -05 and -0500 are
>>equivalents.
>>
>>
>
>There are timezones which are on a half-hour alignment, not
>whole-hour. (Australian central time, for example.)
>
Not to mention all of India, which happens to cover 1/4 of the world's
population. :-)

But that's beside the point -- I disagree about shortening the timezone
because the shorter version is harder to parse visually. The time is
laid out in chunks of 2 digits, separated by a colon. If you have
another 2 digits, instead of 4, for the timezone, then I for one will
regolarly read the TZ as the seconds in the time, and shift the other
fields accordingly. Very confusing.

Besides, my understanding is that we want to keep the first,
ISO-compliant part of the timestamp a fxied-width format, to ease parsing.

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org