Dave Rolsky schreef: > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Ben Bennett wrote: > > > > 200210131:02 > > > > No! Egads :-) Actually I wasn't accepting the form 200210130102 > > either (I will accept 20021013T0102). Should I? > > Is the former form unambiguous? If so, you mighta s well accept it.
200210131:02 is (more or less) unambiguous: 2002-10-13T01:02. But 200210121:02 is ambiguous: 2002-10-12T01:02, 2002-10-01T21:02, 2002-01-01T21:02? Best not to accept either, I'd think. Eugene
