On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:58:57AM -0600, John Buttery wrote: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:35:29AM -0500, "N. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 06:01:28AM -0600, John Buttery wrote: > > > >> That being said, in practice it is probably a good bet 9 times out of > >> 10 that if you see a date like xxxx-xx-xx it is probaby YYYY-MM-DD... > > > >Interesting... In what situation would XXXX-XX-XX ever be confused with > >YYYY-DD-MM instead of YYYY-MM-DD? > > Like I said, if the person didn't know you were using ISO format: > > 2002-01-02 > > If we know this is ISO, then obviously it's "January 2, 2002". But if > we're not _sure_ it's ISO, then it could be "February 1, 2002".
Nah. Not even someone who had never even _heard_ of ISO would ever write YYYY-DD-MM. For one thing, only an analytic would put the year first, and an analytic would follow that by the month, then the day. Gary -- Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Spokane, Washington, USA http://www.spocom.com/users/gjohnson/mutt/ |
