Re: RFC: date parser strawman

On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 05:15:17PM -0500, Greg Hudson wrote:
> Oh, right. The other thing I wanted to note is that I don't think
> YYYY/MM/DD is terribly common. YYYY-MM-DD is pretty much the standard
> for people who care about precision and internationalization of date
> formats, and MM/DD/YY(YY) or DD/MM/YY(YY) is the "vernacular" standard
> for Americans and Europeans who don't worry about misinterpretation by
> people from other cultures.
>
> Just my gut feeling; if people have evidence to the contrary, I'm all
> ears.

I'd been under the impression that YYYY/MM/DD was a commonly used date
format in Japan, but I could be wrong there. Nevertheless, it's
unambiguous so seems safe to support; I've never heard of anyone using
YYYY/DD/MM. I often use YYYY/MM/DD because I like the freedom from
ambiguity but sometimes forget exactly what the ISO separator is.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org