A new date standard?
-
Isn't that an IP address? :laugh:
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
WouldntYaWantToBeAMayan.com I believe?
I may not be that good looking, or athletic, or funny, or talented, or smart I forgot where I was going with this but I do know I love bacon!
-
WouldntYaWantToBeAMayan.com I believe?
I may not be that good looking, or athletic, or funny, or talented, or smart I forgot where I was going with this but I do know I love bacon!
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
"add another digit"
...only when necessary!
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
By mutual agreement of the partners in the interchange?
-
So I'm at this web shop and they have a product which is expected on "30-11--0001" (for Americans, that's the logical order of day-month--year). That's a pretty weird date, I'd expect 01-01-0001 or 01-01-1970 or even 01-01-1753 (the SQL min value), but never 30-11... The extra dash between the month and the year bothers me too, that's not a standard notation anywhere as far as I know. The best part though, is that I can pre-order the product, so apparently 30-11--0001 is a date in the future! And to make it worse, it's a best selling product, so they've already sold plenty. I can only draw one conclusion from all of this: this web shop is centuries, if not millennia, ahead of us (or at least they serve time travellers)! :omg: Is your software Y10K proof? :rolleyes:
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
ISO 8601 or go home.
-
So I'm at this web shop and they have a product which is expected on "30-11--0001" (for Americans, that's the logical order of day-month--year). That's a pretty weird date, I'd expect 01-01-0001 or 01-01-1970 or even 01-01-1753 (the SQL min value), but never 30-11... The extra dash between the month and the year bothers me too, that's not a standard notation anywhere as far as I know. The best part though, is that I can pre-order the product, so apparently 30-11--0001 is a date in the future! And to make it worse, it's a best selling product, so they've already sold plenty. I can only draw one conclusion from all of this: this web shop is centuries, if not millennia, ahead of us (or at least they serve time travellers)! :omg: Is your software Y10K proof? :rolleyes:
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
Quote:
for Americans, that's the logical order of day-month--year
:confused: What I think to remember and described here "In the United States, dates are traditionally written in the "month-day-year" order: Date and time notation in the United States - Wikipedia[^]
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
-
So I'm at this web shop and they have a product which is expected on "30-11--0001" (for Americans, that's the logical order of day-month--year). That's a pretty weird date, I'd expect 01-01-0001 or 01-01-1970 or even 01-01-1753 (the SQL min value), but never 30-11... The extra dash between the month and the year bothers me too, that's not a standard notation anywhere as far as I know. The best part though, is that I can pre-order the product, so apparently 30-11--0001 is a date in the future! And to make it worse, it's a best selling product, so they've already sold plenty. I can only draw one conclusion from all of this: this web shop is centuries, if not millennia, ahead of us (or at least they serve time travellers)! :omg: Is your software Y10K proof? :rolleyes:
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
None, I got the hell out of there :laugh:
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
Sander Rossel wrote:
I got the hell out of there
What you don't trust a site that stores it's dates a strings?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
So I'm at this web shop and they have a product which is expected on "30-11--0001" (for Americans, that's the logical order of day-month--year). That's a pretty weird date, I'd expect 01-01-0001 or 01-01-1970 or even 01-01-1753 (the SQL min value), but never 30-11... The extra dash between the month and the year bothers me too, that's not a standard notation anywhere as far as I know. The best part though, is that I can pre-order the product, so apparently 30-11--0001 is a date in the future! And to make it worse, it's a best selling product, so they've already sold plenty. I can only draw one conclusion from all of this: this web shop is centuries, if not millennia, ahead of us (or at least they serve time travellers)! :omg: Is your software Y10K proof? :rolleyes:
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
Isn't that an IP address? :laugh:
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640 Never throw anything away, Griff Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
Its an IP address of a point in time! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
So I'm at this web shop and they have a product which is expected on "30-11--0001" (for Americans, that's the logical order of day-month--year). That's a pretty weird date, I'd expect 01-01-0001 or 01-01-1970 or even 01-01-1753 (the SQL min value), but never 30-11... The extra dash between the month and the year bothers me too, that's not a standard notation anywhere as far as I know. The best part though, is that I can pre-order the product, so apparently 30-11--0001 is a date in the future! And to make it worse, it's a best selling product, so they've already sold plenty. I can only draw one conclusion from all of this: this web shop is centuries, if not millennia, ahead of us (or at least they serve time travellers)! :omg: Is your software Y10K proof? :rolleyes:
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
This is format dd-MM-uuuu, where the year may be negative: -1 here, as opposed to yyyy. Maybe a hotel reservation in Bethlehem.
-
So I'm at this web shop and they have a product which is expected on "30-11--0001" (for Americans, that's the logical order of day-month--year). That's a pretty weird date, I'd expect 01-01-0001 or 01-01-1970 or even 01-01-1753 (the SQL min value), but never 30-11... The extra dash between the month and the year bothers me too, that's not a standard notation anywhere as far as I know. The best part though, is that I can pre-order the product, so apparently 30-11--0001 is a date in the future! And to make it worse, it's a best selling product, so they've already sold plenty. I can only draw one conclusion from all of this: this web shop is centuries, if not millennia, ahead of us (or at least they serve time travellers)! :omg: Is your software Y10K proof? :rolleyes:
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
Sander Rossel wrote:
(for Americans, that's the logical order of day-month--year).
That's the typical Eurocentric ass-backwards mindset. YYYYMMDD, with whatever delimiters float you boat. As for the US Vernacular, most conversations would say something like October 25th or June 2nd. The year is only necessary, in conversations, a fraction of the time. So - the dates are written as they are said. But, as far as it goes, it's no worse for sorting (even when numeric) than the crappy Euro-convention. At least, if all in the same year, the US convention MM-DD would sort correctly (small consolation).
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
1 BCE?
I may not be that good looking, or athletic, or funny, or talented, or smart I forgot where I was going with this but I do know I love bacon!
Mike Hankey wrote:
1 BCE?
or maybe 2 BCE? When Y2K was a hot topic, I was surprised to learn that the church (at least the protestant ones, but I assume that catholic ones agree, and then the other (Christian) ones follow suit) have a discontinuous time line: Year 1 BC is immediately followed by year 1 AD, with no intermediate year 0. So the question is if the time format used here has a year 0. We must assume that value 1 is AD (or if you like: CE), but is a value of 0 then 1 BC, and a value of -1 consequently 2 BC? Or is value 0 illegal? I was surprised to read in Wikipedia that the numerical value of AD/BC and CE are identical, with "400 BCE corresponds to 400 BC" explicitly given as an example. So the CE concept has adopted a discontinuous number line for labeling years. It is kind of curious that in an attempt to mark an independence from religion defined time scales, still we stick to a highly religion defined number line, rather than a mathematical one. Maybe it has to do with the zero being invented by the Arabs, and as we all know, their culture is not quite as we want it to be, so we reject it. What I am now waiting for is some (secular) standard that requires 1 = 3.
-
Mike Hankey wrote:
1 BCE?
or maybe 2 BCE? When Y2K was a hot topic, I was surprised to learn that the church (at least the protestant ones, but I assume that catholic ones agree, and then the other (Christian) ones follow suit) have a discontinuous time line: Year 1 BC is immediately followed by year 1 AD, with no intermediate year 0. So the question is if the time format used here has a year 0. We must assume that value 1 is AD (or if you like: CE), but is a value of 0 then 1 BC, and a value of -1 consequently 2 BC? Or is value 0 illegal? I was surprised to read in Wikipedia that the numerical value of AD/BC and CE are identical, with "400 BCE corresponds to 400 BC" explicitly given as an example. So the CE concept has adopted a discontinuous number line for labeling years. It is kind of curious that in an attempt to mark an independence from religion defined time scales, still we stick to a highly religion defined number line, rather than a mathematical one. Maybe it has to do with the zero being invented by the Arabs, and as we all know, their culture is not quite as we want it to be, so we reject it. What I am now waiting for is some (secular) standard that requires 1 = 3.
Now that you mention it I have never seen or read a reference to year 0. Hmmm
I may not be that good looking, or athletic, or funny, or talented, or smart I forgot where I was going with this but I do know I love bacon!
-
So I'm at this web shop and they have a product which is expected on "30-11--0001" (for Americans, that's the logical order of day-month--year). That's a pretty weird date, I'd expect 01-01-0001 or 01-01-1970 or even 01-01-1753 (the SQL min value), but never 30-11... The extra dash between the month and the year bothers me too, that's not a standard notation anywhere as far as I know. The best part though, is that I can pre-order the product, so apparently 30-11--0001 is a date in the future! And to make it worse, it's a best selling product, so they've already sold plenty. I can only draw one conclusion from all of this: this web shop is centuries, if not millennia, ahead of us (or at least they serve time travellers)! :omg: Is your software Y10K proof? :rolleyes:
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
The year value -1 should have tipped you off. If a date value is initialized to all 1 bits, and you interpret it as numeric subfields, 111...11 is -1. So the year comes out as -1. Now for the month, nubered from 0 and upwards, January is month 0. -1 is the month before that, which is December. We go on to the date field: 0 is the first day of the month, and -1 is one day earlier. We were in December, and go one day back: That brings us to November 30th. Which is the value that you've got. Date -1 of month -1 of year -1 comes out formatted exactly the way you saw it. I think it would have been more correct if the year was -0002: Like the date -1 pulls the month from December back to November, the month -1 should have pulled the year back to -0002. I read an article about this a few weeks ago (now I pity that I didn't save the URL!) telling that one of the most widespread libraries used for formatting in the *nix world doesn't do that; it gives exactly the value 30-11--0001 for an input of all bits set.
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
(for Americans, that's the logical order of day-month--year).
That's the typical Eurocentric ass-backwards mindset. YYYYMMDD, with whatever delimiters float you boat. As for the US Vernacular, most conversations would say something like October 25th or June 2nd. The year is only necessary, in conversations, a fraction of the time. So - the dates are written as they are said. But, as far as it goes, it's no worse for sorting (even when numeric) than the crappy Euro-convention. At least, if all in the same year, the US convention MM-DD would sort correctly (small consolation).
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Usually, Americans consider every single NIH standard "crappy". If an ISO standard does not exactly and without modifications specify established US traditions and conventions down to the last detail, then the standard is not invented here, and is crappy. ISO standards are great if they state that the way Americans always have done it is The Right Way to do it. Otherwise: Forget ISO standards! ISO 8601[^] has been rapidly growing as The date format in all formal and technical application. It has not taken completely over yet, but every year you see increased usage, in all sorts of paper and electronic forms, in automatically formatted printouts etc. The yyyy-mm-dd format is consistent, all details of the format is strictly defined, and the textual representation can be sorted correctly as text. (8601 convers time as well as dates.) In informal speech, we still say "twentysecond of October, 2018", we never say "October twentysecond, 2018". Funny enough: When I talk with native English speakers, they use the "twentysecond of October" form more often than "October twentysecond" in their speech, but they all insist on writing "Oct. 22nd". I guess that Europeans will continue to say it the same way as before, that is the most common way for English speakers, but just like the English speakers, we will gradually change to use the ISO 8601 even when writing with a quill, because that is what we see every day where dates are formatted (or consumed) by a computer. Most information today is. For the discussion about which is the "natural" order - from smaller to larger, or larger to smaller (forget the mixed-order alternative!): Isn't it funny that for DNS names, smaller to larger is "natural", but for IP addresses, larger to smaller is "natural". Also: Our numerals are Arabic, and we write the digits in the same order in Latin based scripts as the Arabs do - but we read them in the opposite order! In Arabic, "24 blackbirds" (or "sdribkcalb 24" if you like) is read like "four-and-twenty blackbirds" (or German: "vierundzwanzig Amseln"). The right-to-left reading of numbers is gradually disappearing; it was far more common earlier. Nowadays, left-to-right reading is the standard in both English, Norwegian, Swedish and several other European languages that earlier used the Arabic / German reading order.
-
So I'm at this web shop and they have a product which is expected on "30-11--0001" (for Americans, that's the logical order of day-month--year). That's a pretty weird date, I'd expect 01-01-0001 or 01-01-1970 or even 01-01-1753 (the SQL min value), but never 30-11... The extra dash between the month and the year bothers me too, that's not a standard notation anywhere as far as I know. The best part though, is that I can pre-order the product, so apparently 30-11--0001 is a date in the future! And to make it worse, it's a best selling product, so they've already sold plenty. I can only draw one conclusion from all of this: this web shop is centuries, if not millennia, ahead of us (or at least they serve time travellers)! :omg: Is your software Y10K proof? :rolleyes:
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
I wait for when the relative date format becomes universal. Past, Now, Future. The is no value of things that happened in the past. Why waste time on when it was. Any event in the future either will or will not happen. When it happens it will be now. Now is the only time to focus on. (I have been on a bit of mental self actualisation last weekend)
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
(for Americans, that's the logical order of day-month--year).
That's the typical Eurocentric ass-backwards mindset. YYYYMMDD, with whatever delimiters float you boat. As for the US Vernacular, most conversations would say something like October 25th or June 2nd. The year is only necessary, in conversations, a fraction of the time. So - the dates are written as they are said. But, as far as it goes, it's no worse for sorting (even when numeric) than the crappy Euro-convention. At least, if all in the same year, the US convention MM-DD would sort correctly (small consolation).
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
W∴ Balboos wrote:
YYYYMMDD
But the year is probably the digit you're LEAST interested in... Sorting is only an issue when you're using strings as dates, which you shouldn't, as all languages I know sort dates correctly :rolleyes:
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
The year value -1 should have tipped you off. If a date value is initialized to all 1 bits, and you interpret it as numeric subfields, 111...11 is -1. So the year comes out as -1. Now for the month, nubered from 0 and upwards, January is month 0. -1 is the month before that, which is December. We go on to the date field: 0 is the first day of the month, and -1 is one day earlier. We were in December, and go one day back: That brings us to November 30th. Which is the value that you've got. Date -1 of month -1 of year -1 comes out formatted exactly the way you saw it. I think it would have been more correct if the year was -0002: Like the date -1 pulls the month from December back to November, the month -1 should have pulled the year back to -0002. I read an article about this a few weeks ago (now I pity that I didn't save the URL!) telling that one of the most widespread libraries used for formatting in the *nix world doesn't do that; it gives exactly the value 30-11--0001 for an input of all bits set.
That's amazing work, Sherlock! :laugh: It never even occurred to me that the year was negative, I just assumed someone mistyped -- instead of -
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
So I'm at this web shop and they have a product which is expected on "30-11--0001" (for Americans, that's the logical order of day-month--year). That's a pretty weird date, I'd expect 01-01-0001 or 01-01-1970 or even 01-01-1753 (the SQL min value), but never 30-11... The extra dash between the month and the year bothers me too, that's not a standard notation anywhere as far as I know. The best part though, is that I can pre-order the product, so apparently 30-11--0001 is a date in the future! And to make it worse, it's a best selling product, so they've already sold plenty. I can only draw one conclusion from all of this: this web shop is centuries, if not millennia, ahead of us (or at least they serve time travellers)! :omg: Is your software Y10K proof? :rolleyes:
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
I wait for when the relative date format becomes universal. Past, Now, Future. The is no value of things that happened in the past. Why waste time on when it was. Any event in the future either will or will not happen. When it happens it will be now. Now is the only time to focus on. (I have been on a bit of mental self actualisation last weekend)
You got my vote. No more time zones, leap years, leap seconds, summer time, etc. :thumbsup: And the DateTime object could simply be an enum type :D
Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
