Return-Path: Resent-From: cbmvax!uunet!PICA.ARMY.MIL!protin Date: Fri Jul 19 16:34:30 1991 Resent-Message-Id: <9107192030.AA16637@relay1.UU.NET> Return-Path: From: Guy Steele Message-Id: <9009041711.AA10053@mozart.think.com> To: major@pta.oz.au Cc: dave@prc.unisys.com, lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com In-Reply-To: Major's message of Mon, 3 Sep 90 10:35:42 +0800 <9009030527.22474@munnari.oz.au> Subject: times, dates, images, and S-W Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 16:16:33 EDT Resent-To: John Cowan Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jul 19 16:34:30 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!PICA.ARMY.MIL!protin Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 10:35:42 +0800 From: major@pta.oz.au (Major) dave@PRC.Unisys.COM writes: > A big advantage is that numerical sorts work just fine. > > [defending his suggestion for date layout] > Another advantage is that it doesn't favor either American-style dates > (mm/dd/yy) or British-style dates (dd/mm/yy) No, it favors Japanese-style dates yymmdd or yy.mm.dd > it's more logical than either, and it can be equally easily explained > to members of both groups. The American method mirrors the way we pronounce the date 010290 January second 1990 The British method is ascending order of significance and the Japanese descending order of significance. The British or Japanese seem more 'logical' (I hate using that word in this group) to me but ease of computer sorting is not enough of a tie-breaker for me to say that the Japanese way is a clear winner. Consider that the order yy mm dd puts the fastest-varying position last. This is consistent with our usual notations for time (hh:mm:ss) and for ordinary numerals. As you count successive integers (18, 19, 20, 21, 22) the last position changes fastest, the second-last position changes second-fastest, etc. The same is true if you generalize to decimal fractions. If you have a date and a time together, only the order yy/mm/dd hh:mm:ss gives you this useful property. Probably a date ought to be preceded by a marker of some kind so that you know what is coming, carrying the force of "A.D." and "B.C." (or "C.E." and "B.C.E."). Perhaps a time should be preceded, at least optionally, by a time zone indicator. AD 1990 September 4 EDT 13:12:47 --Guy Steele