541
Perfect date (jlai.lu)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
151 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

top 93 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 295 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (50 children)

Waiting for the ISO 8601 & 9001 gang to show up and promote YYYY-MM-DD.

Edit: That took seconds, a very punctual bunch.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 50 child comments
    •
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    RFC 3339 if you please. Let's be prescriptive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    After all the self-important blowhards in the committe were satisified that they had put their fingerprint on the ISO8601 document with bullshit like "year-month-week" format support and signed off, they went home.

    The rest stayed behind, waited a few minutes to be safe, and then quickly made RFC3339 like a proper standard.

    This is what RFC3339 vs ISO8601 feels like.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Let's not forget that technically you have to pay for ISO8601, despite it being nearly useless as a standard because it allows several incompatible formats to coexist.

    Fucking wild.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    ISO8601 is YYYY-MM-DD nothing to do with weeks and isn;t the only difference of RFC3339 that you can use a space instead of a T in between the date and time? Also RFC3339 is only an internet standard while ISO is a generally international standard?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No idea what you based those claims on, but the spec itself (I have the pdf) and Wikipedia's summary disagree. ISO8601 allows for YYY-MM-DD yes but it allows for a bunch of silly stuff.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601

    Both "2025-W24-4" and "2025‐163" are valid representations of today's date in ISO8601.

    (Also the optional timezone makes it utterly useless.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The omitting of timezones doesn't matter to a vast majority of the world, since most countries only have one time zone so I don't see a reason why that is relevant in most use cases.

    ISO is a general standard, it's in the name and the RFC is created for the internet, that is also in the name/description of the RF.

    Using 2025-164 can be handy, I actually use the day of the year to check what invoices from previous year are open since those are the invoices that are due 164 days or more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    ISO8601 is much much looser than RFC3339:

    https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yeah I know, but it also has a different use case. As far as I know RFC3339 is mostly used for programming while ISO8601 is the standard for international communication and I wish people would use it more. I have processed American invoices in the wrong month because of their date structure. I have no reason to it, but I always write my date ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Anyone help enlighten me about whatever this and unix epoch are getting at? Are these really more specific/better than iso 8601 and why specifically?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Happily!

    So, first epoch time. It's a pretty robust standard, covers many use cases, has few edge cases... but it's specifically for machine usage, since it's not human readable and it's not reversible into the past (pre-1970).

    ISO 8601 (depending on the annum), by the text of the documentation, these are all valid dates:

    • 2007-04-05T14:30
    • 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
    • 2007-04-05T14:30Z
    • 200704051430
    • 07-04-05T14:30
    • 2007-95T14:30

    Etc.

    RFC 3339 (& RFC 9557, it's newest modification) is actually a subset of ISO 8601 and is far more prescriptive. For example you must have a timezone designator. You must have a separator between the date and time. You must use a dash between date elements and a colon between time elements. You can easily add standardized subseconds.

    • 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
    • 2007-04-05 14:30Z

    This means that RFC 3339 is much easier to parse and use by both machines and humans.

    This page (reddit, I know...) has a great summary, and so in the interest of knowledge and attribution I'll link it: https://www.reddit.com/r/ISO8601/comments/p572xy/rfc_3339_versus_iso_8601/

    This website allows you to more directly compare the two interactively. https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I’m now imagining a child who must write 2026-05-10T10:06:09.426792Z on all of their tests.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They should also add a timezone since most of us don't live at UTC zero timezones -> 2012-12-28T18:12:33+09:00

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    It's a flexible standard. 2026-05-10T10:06:09.426792Z, 2026-05-10 10:06:09.426792Z, 2026-05-10 10:06:09.426792 , and 2026-05-10 all conform to the standard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 48 points 1 year ago (6 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I use periods. YYYY.MM.DD

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I know. I started using the format with periods back in the 90s, before I knew of the standard, and at this point doing it with periods is muscle memory. That's not meant as an excuse, just an explanation. The excuse is laziness.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Anyone that gives me a document or receipt or invoice with a date formatted DD-MM-YYYY should have a tire iron swung at their thighs

    Multiple swings if they can't decide on using DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY or DD-MM-YY or MM-DD-YY or YY-MM-DD or YY-DD-MM

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I rather have somebody write their invoices at DD-MM-YYYY cause there is a bigger chance it will most likely not be an invoice from a North American company which notriously cannot make proper invoices and most software that actually scans and processes invoices is based on the European standaard DD-MM-YYYY or on ISO8601.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    As a big ISO 8601 guy myself, I request explanation of this 9001 addition? Never heard of it till now and am optimistic

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    DD-MM-YYYY-HH-MM-SS

    Makes no sense!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I prefer the alphabetical date format DD-HH-MM-SS-mm-yy for maximum confusion

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Were you mostly joking or is there a utility to this? Genuinely curious as someone that finds confusing things slightly more memorable in a really backwards way

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 60 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    YYYY-MM-DD if you're doing backup naming, easier to find

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [–] 50 points 1 year ago

    iso8601 aka 2025-06-12

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 87 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    This fucknuts who thinks day should come before year, hah! Give me YYYY-MM-DD, because dashes are better than slashes any day of the week.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    When i first read a date, i want to see the thing that changes 74 times in my entire life first too

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    HA! if you even get to be 74!

    But in some jobs the year is more important (bookkeeping/accounting) and doing YYYY-MM-DD automatically sorts your dates

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    YYYY-MM-DD obviously has uses, especially with sorting, but that doesnt make it the objectively best date format

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 74 points 1 year ago

    ISO 8601 gang.

    Represent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 47 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    My time abroad has taught me that YYYY/MM/DD is the way to format dates.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Excuse me but !iso8601@lemmy.sdf.org .

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 42 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    YYYYMMDDHHMMSS is the only acceptable format.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    That's a tough one. I would have to say April 25. Because it's not too hot, not too cold, all you need is a light jacket.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 32 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    For consistency, Americans should adopt mm:ss.hh MM-DD-YYYY.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    For consistency, Europeans should adopt ss:mm:hh DD-MM-YYYY.

    See how ridiculous that is? ISO8601 or GTFO

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The european one is sorted based on importance to see. The day is more important than the month which is more important than the year. The hour is more important than the minute which is more important than the second

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    But in any given situation where the month is important enough that I need to know it, I want to know the month regardless of the day. The 25th means fuck all to me unless I know the month, as well; whereas there are plenty of scenarios where I want to know the month but the day isn't quite as important.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [–] 58 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Immediate red flag, we all know that YYYY/MM/DD is the only acceptable perfect date

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Agreed. As a nonviolent person, I'm willing to go to war over this. Can't have two files from different years listed side by side because they were from the first day of different months. That's anarchy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    2 comments in c/memes@jlai.lu view that post