Re: What day is 2010-01-02
Well quite, I said that it illustrated the mode of argument, not that the arguments were valid. The arguments made on behalf of 'astronomers' are of course made by assertion without bothering to ask what astronomers might think. Every time someone proposes removing some archaic piece of junk from the Internet specs we have people saying 'but its being used in rural Africa'. I saw that argument being made seriously with respect to UUNET bang path mail routing when it was finally being euthanized.. And the adage 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', is invariably used after someone has asserted that something is broken. So a more honest version of the usage would be 'If I don't think your problem matters, don't fix it'. The point about the leap seconds is that the same phrase can be used to support both the status quo (constantly changing the measurement of time in unpredictable ways) and the proposed change (stop adding leap seconds). And people whose interests are in preserving the status quo for the sake of the status quo can always dismiss the claims of the people who were not at the table when the original decision was made. Unless the earth is slowing down faster than I thought, it would be several thousand years before the accumulated error is as much as an hour. But since we never use UTC time for daily use, why would this matter? We always use local time. Making UTC time slip constantly means that we need three separate time systems: TAI, UTC and Local when all we really need is one fixed series and a second one to make up the adjustment. On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote: On Mar 18, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Well the US pint is 16 fluid oz which is 1 lb of water. The UK pint is 20 so a pint of water is a pound and a quarter. Go figure. But since we are on the subject of time, why accept UTC as the basis for Internet time? Leap seconds are unpredictable and lead to system errors. The only group with a colorable benefit from leap seconds are astronomers, the one group that might be expected to be able to fix leap seconds retrospectively. The ITU has been discussing plans to abandon leap seconds in perpetuity, but the astronomers always seem to win in the end. If we moved from UTC to Internet Time, we could abolish leap seconds. This is backwards. Most astronomers I know regard UTC as a nuisance. In their calculations, astronomers use TAI (or, if they need to know the rotation of the Earth, UT1). Solar system ephemeris work uses ephemeris time, for historical reasons (ET - TAI = 32.184 seconds). GPS internally uses GPS time, which has the leap second adjustment appropriate for the start of the series in 1980, supposedly because the GPS program office didn't understand leap seconds (TAI - GPS = 19 seconds). The push to create and maintain UTC came primarily from mariners various navies, who wanted to be able to do celestial navigation using civil time (i.e., to treat UTC as an approximation of UT1, so that you could do km level celestial navigation using time straight from NTP or WWV). Now, with GPS/Glonass/Galileo, this seems largely moot. Now, it is true that Ken Seidelmann is an astronomer, and he is against the change, but that is mostly in a if is isn't broke, don't fix it mode, and also because he is thinking of the long term (in 500 to 600 years the UT1-TAI offset should be order an hour, and people can be expected to start complaining). The biggest thing stopping any change is apathy (and the aforementioned if is isn't broke, don't fix it). This site has a lot of information on this subject http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/nc1985wp7a.html I used to say that computer time should be TAI (closest to the actual clocks, easy to calculate elapsed times), but that never seem to get any traction. Regards Marshall OK, I am not seriously proposing the IETF try to do this (well not unless we get into a real fight with the ITU). But if you read some of the idiotic arguments advanced in favor of introducing random, unpredictable changes into the measurement of time, they are rather interesting. There are astronomers who seem to think the earth revolves around them. There are dire predictions that stopping fiddling with the time system would be a 'major change'. Every argument is thrown out, regardless of whether it makes any sense. People who point out that leap seconds really do cost real money are poo-pooed as having insignificant importance in such lofty debates. Quite a few of the protagonists attempt to claim it is only the ignorance and stupidity of the objectors to leap seconds that makes them unable to see the reason that they are essential. Over the course of a year, the length of a day varies by several hours at this latitude. And the time at which noon occurs varies by several minutes. And twice a year the state decides that we will all get up an hour
Re: What day is 2010-01-02 (and what time is it)
This is something that I have not seen any calendar software do right. I agree with the argument that time zones for future events should be strings, not numbers. OK so you might need to do a lookup to disambiguate, but that is because there is a possibility of change. I once had a MrCoffee machine which would not make coffee unless the time was set and would lose the time setting with the least provocation from the mains supply. When I used Outlook, it never had the (obvious to me) feature of being able to specify the local time for a meeting. I used to have recurring conference calls. Some were based on US time, others on European time. It is a pretty obvious fact to me that this will cause the meetings to sometimes recur at different times and this would depend on the time zone for the meeting, not the time zone my laptop happened to be in at a particular time. Equally, I never found a system that was clever enough to work out that if I take a trip to another time zone, that this should affect the default meeting times for all the meetings scheduled within the trip. I would have imagined that it was a no-brainer for airlines and travel agencies to work out that they need to take account of local time correctly. But no, I had an application that was meant to stuff flight data into my calendar, it invariably did this wrong. Flights from BOS to SFO would be scheduled for 3 hours duration, flights from SFO to BOS would be scheduled for 9 hours duration. People have told me that there are 'hidden problems' in developing a calendaring spec. If implementations as widely used as Outlook are unable to manage the obvious problems of simple business trip, I hate to think what the 'hidden problems might be. 2010/3/18 Tony Finch d...@dotat.at: On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Patrik Fältström wrote: We should from IETF point of view review the ical spec, and try to push timezone information away from the objects, and to a central repository. The timezone offset should be calculated based on the geographical location of the event. Yes. http://fanf.livejournal.com/104586.html I.e. if I (or my application) know something happened at 13:32 on 2010-01-02 in Stockholm, that is I claim the best way of stating when something happened. Even better example is 13:32 at 2123-01-02 in Stockholm, as the chance Stockholm still exists in 2123 is higher than Stockholm use the same daylight savings rule then compared with today. Yes, though you need a disambiguation flag for times when the clocks go back. In general RFC 3339 (i.e. date + time + UTC offset) is right for recording timestamps of events that have occurred, but wrong for scheduling human events in the future. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD. -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
I'm American from Brazil we always use dd/mm/ :-) Anyway, in a computer context I think that -mm-dd is a good design, because I'ts easier to sort and organize by a script in a cronological order. As it may cause a lot of confusion, I assume that one way is to use a tag to identify date format use, like GMT-3 when we write about time. On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 03/17/2010 09:18 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: Absolutely. But Americans don't expect this kind of stuff to make sense, because they're used to having a different way of measuring everything, while in the rest of the world we're used to the metric system so we assume things make sense. So an American wouldn't necessarily consider -dd-mm inconceivable while people from elsewhere probably would and just assume -mm-dd. I think you're generalizing to some potentially non-existant superset of a population that may or may not read internet drafts. I'm really not sure that's relevant. A group in my organization (based in the uk no less) was just hosed by a windows api that represents months using their spelling and is therefore locale dependant, I'd rather prefer rfc-3339, somehow rather than worrying that the report for the month of февраль din't get generated. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
But the order on the stack is year, month, day!
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Robert Kisteleki rob...@ripe.net wrote:
On 2010.03.13. 19:23, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 05:13:41PM +0100,
Arnt Gulbrandsena...@gulbrandsen.priv.no wrote
a message of 17 lines which said:
Those are RFC 3339 dates.
It took thirteen messages for someone to notice that there is an IETF
standard for dates and that the IETF uses it on its own Web
pages... People should spend more time reading published RFCs :-}
Fair enough. Inspired by this I actually read the RFC. I find it quite
amusing that in an RFC that basically says thou shalt always use
-MM-DD, the actual code in appendix B is the following:
char *day_of_week(int day, int month, int year)
{
...
}
Robert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
--
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: What day is 2010-01-02
I agree with Iljitsch's earlier point: In this day and age, if one is not sure how to interpret 2010-01-02 at first glance, he should have no trouble figuring it out right away. We would expect people who are interested in IETF material to have the curiosity to find out, wouldn't we? What I am not so sure about is the sweeping statement that Americans would likely have difficulties with the '-mm-dd' format. I walked around the office and polled seven of my co-workers who happen to be around (all engineers by trade, five 'natives'), all seven (eight including me) _know_ what it means. Microsoft Windows already allow options to customize 'short date' presentation in all locales that I spot-checked, one of them is '-mm-dd'. Perhaps this really is a non-issue after all? Jerry -- Jerry Huang, ATT Labs, +1 630 719 4389 -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 11:19 To: memcn...@gmail.com Cc: Yao Jiankang; ietf@ietf.org Discussion Subject: Re: What day is 2010-01-02 On 17 mrt 2010, at 17:02, Michael Edward McNeil wrote: (Although the exposure to non-standard ways of doing things may make this harder for Americans.) Since Americans habitually use month-day order anyway, why would -MM- DD be especially difficult for them? It's Europeans and others who typically use day-month order that would seem likely to incur difficulties - - except that putting the year first is a pretty glaring clue that the order shouldn't be regarded as it usually is for them. Absolutely. But Americans don't expect this kind of stuff to make sense, because they're used to having a different way of measuring everything, while in the rest of the world we're used to the metric system so we assume things make sense. So an American wouldn't necessarily consider -dd-mm inconceivable while people from elsewhere probably would and just assume -mm-dd. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
- Original Message - From: HUANG, JERRY (ATTLABS) zh1...@att.com To: Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com; memcn...@gmail.com Cc: Yao Jiankang ya...@cnnic.cn; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:51 AM Subject: RE: What day is 2010-01-02 What I am not so sure about is the sweeping statement that Americans would likely have difficulties with the '-mm-dd' format. I walked around the office and polled seven of my co-workers who happen to be around (all engineers by trade, five 'natives'), all seven (eight including me) _know_ what it means. Good test. but you tested it only in your office which, I think , is located in USA. So the conclusion derived from your office test may apply only to most offices in USA. Have you tested it in U.K., France, ASIA countries such as Japan, China of different culture and background? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
Well the US pint is 16 fluid oz which is 1 lb of water. The UK pint is 20 so a pint of water is a pound and a quarter. Go figure. But since we are on the subject of time, why accept UTC as the basis for Internet time? Leap seconds are unpredictable and lead to system errors. The only group with a colorable benefit from leap seconds are astronomers, the one group that might be expected to be able to fix leap seconds retrospectively. The ITU has been discussing plans to abandon leap seconds in perpetuity, but the astronomers always seem to win in the end. If we moved from UTC to Internet Time, we could abolish leap seconds. OK, I am not seriously proposing the IETF try to do this (well not unless we get into a real fight with the ITU). But if you read some of the idiotic arguments advanced in favor of introducing random, unpredictable changes into the measurement of time, they are rather interesting. There are astronomers who seem to think the earth revolves around them. There are dire predictions that stopping fiddling with the time system would be a 'major change'. Every argument is thrown out, regardless of whether it makes any sense. People who point out that leap seconds really do cost real money are poo-pooed as having insignificant importance in such lofty debates. Quite a few of the protagonists attempt to claim it is only the ignorance and stupidity of the objectors to leap seconds that makes them unable to see the reason that they are essential. Over the course of a year, the length of a day varies by several hours at this latitude. And the time at which noon occurs varies by several minutes. And twice a year the state decides that we will all get up an hour earlier or later. So what benefit are those leap seconds to me? Absolutely none that I can see. On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com wrote: On 17 mrt 2010, at 17:02, Michael Edward McNeil wrote: (Although the exposure to non-standard ways of doing things may make this harder for Americans.) Since Americans habitually use month-day order anyway, why would -MM-DD be especially difficult for them? It's Europeans and others who typically use day-month order that would seem likely to incur difficulties -- except that putting the year first is a pretty glaring clue that the order shouldn't be regarded as it usually is for them. Absolutely. But Americans don't expect this kind of stuff to make sense, because they're used to having a different way of measuring everything, while in the rest of the world we're used to the metric system so we assume things make sense. So an American wouldn't necessarily consider -dd-mm inconceivable while people from elsewhere probably would and just assume -mm-dd. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Mar 18, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Well the US pint is 16 fluid oz which is 1 lb of water. The UK pint is 20 so a pint of water is a pound and a quarter. Go figure. But since we are on the subject of time, why accept UTC as the basis for Internet time? Leap seconds are unpredictable and lead to system errors. The only group with a colorable benefit from leap seconds are astronomers, the one group that might be expected to be able to fix leap seconds retrospectively. The ITU has been discussing plans to abandon leap seconds in perpetuity, but the astronomers always seem to win in the end. If we moved from UTC to Internet Time, we could abolish leap seconds. This is backwards. Most astronomers I know regard UTC as a nuisance. In their calculations, astronomers use TAI (or, if they need to know the rotation of the Earth, UT1). Solar system ephemeris work uses ephemeris time, for historical reasons (ET − TAI = 32.184 seconds). GPS internally uses GPS time, which has the leap second adjustment appropriate for the start of the series in 1980, supposedly because the GPS program office didn't understand leap seconds (TAI - GPS = 19 seconds). The push to create and maintain UTC came primarily from mariners various navies, who wanted to be able to do celestial navigation using civil time (i.e., to treat UTC as an approximation of UT1, so that you could do km level celestial navigation using time straight from NTP or WWV). Now, with GPS/Glonass/Galileo, this seems largely moot. Now, it is true that Ken Seidelmann is an astronomer, and he is against the change, but that is mostly in a if is isn't broke, don't fix it mode, and also because he is thinking of the long term (in 500 to 600 years the UT1-TAI offset should be order an hour, and people can be expected to start complaining). The biggest thing stopping any change is apathy (and the aforementioned if is isn't broke, don't fix it). This site has a lot of information on this subject http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/nc1985wp7a.html I used to say that computer time should be TAI (closest to the actual clocks, easy to calculate elapsed times), but that never seem to get any traction. Regards Marshall OK, I am not seriously proposing the IETF try to do this (well not unless we get into a real fight with the ITU). But if you read some of the idiotic arguments advanced in favor of introducing random, unpredictable changes into the measurement of time, they are rather interesting. There are astronomers who seem to think the earth revolves around them. There are dire predictions that stopping fiddling with the time system would be a 'major change'. Every argument is thrown out, regardless of whether it makes any sense. People who point out that leap seconds really do cost real money are poo-pooed as having insignificant importance in such lofty debates. Quite a few of the protagonists attempt to claim it is only the ignorance and stupidity of the objectors to leap seconds that makes them unable to see the reason that they are essential. Over the course of a year, the length of a day varies by several hours at this latitude. And the time at which noon occurs varies by several minutes. And twice a year the state decides that we will all get up an hour earlier or later. So what benefit are those leap seconds to me? Absolutely none that I can see. On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com wrote: On 17 mrt 2010, at 17:02, Michael Edward McNeil wrote: (Although the exposure to non-standard ways of doing things may make this harder for Americans.) Since Americans habitually use month-day order anyway, why would -MM-DD be especially difficult for them? It's Europeans and others who typically use day-month order that would seem likely to incur difficulties -- except that putting the year first is a pretty glaring clue that the order shouldn't be regarded as it usually is for them. Absolutely. But Americans don't expect this kind of stuff to make sense, because they're used to having a different way of measuring everything, while in the rest of the world we're used to the metric system so we assume things make sense. So an American wouldn't necessarily consider -dd-mm inconceivable while people from elsewhere probably would and just assume -mm-dd. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
YAO Jiankang ya...@cnnic.cn wrote: HUANG, JERRY (ATTLABS) zh1...@att.com wrote: What I am not so sure about is the sweeping statement that Americans would likely have difficulties with the '-mm-dd' format. I walked around the office and polled seven of my co-workers who happen to be around (all engineers by trade, five 'natives'), all seven (eight including me) _know_ what it means. Good test. but you tested it only in your office which, I think , is located in USA. So the conclusion derived from your office test may apply only to most offices in USA. Have you tested it in U.K., France, ASIA countries such as Japan, China of different culture and background? He was specifically reacting to the statement that *Americans* would be more likely to have difficulties with this format. I found that claim strange myself, since I live in the US and I've never met anyone who has difficulties with that format. [ I believe that China uses -MM-DD anyway, and Wikipedia agrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_and_time_notation_by_country#Greater_China ] HUANG, JERRY (ATTLABS) zh1...@att.com wrote: Perhaps this really is a non-issue after all? That's about what I said in my other email on this thread: Other than the email that started this thread, which mentioned a single individual who found 2010-01-02 ambiguous, I have *NEVER* heard of anyone finding that format ambiguous. As I said in that email, I think we'd need some evidence that there's an actual problem before it'd be worth discussion a solution. As far as I can tell, there's no such evidence, and no problem here. -- Cos ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02 (and what time is it)
On 18 mar 2010, at 17.38, Marshall Eubanks wrote: This is backwards. Most astronomers I know regard UTC as a nuisance. In their calculations, astronomers use TAI (or, if they need to know the rotation of the Earth, UT1). Solar system ephemeris work uses ephemeris time, for historical reasons (ET − TAI = 32.184 seconds). GPS internally uses GPS time, which has the leap second adjustment appropriate for the start of the series in 1980, supposedly because the GPS program office didn't understand leap seconds (TAI - GPS = 19 seconds). Hmm...the signal for the GPS include the difference nowadays, right? But, the largest problem I think are daylight savings, and the fact the daylight savings rules change. We should from IETF point of view review the ical spec, and try to push timezone information away from the objects, and to a central repository. The timezone offset should be calculated based on the geographical location of the event. I.e. if I (or my application) know something happened at 13:32 on 2010-01-02 in Stockholm, that is I claim the best way of stating when something happened. Even better example is 13:32 at 2123-01-02 in Stockholm, as the chance Stockholm still exists in 2123 is higher than Stockholm use the same daylight savings rule then compared with today. Of course one should be able to say explicit time related to UTC (or TAI ;-) ) as well, but...I am tired of all applications that do the wrong thing. Specifically in user interfaces. Patrik PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
2010/3/18 Alfredo Dal´Ava Júnior alfredo.dal...@gmail.com I'm American from Brazil we always use dd/mm/ :-) So, that's how Brazilians refer to themselves and each other: I'm an American? And even if so (which I very much doubt), spelled that way as in American [sic] English? Yeah, sure. (If you want to call yourselves Americanos or however it would be spelt in Brazilian Portuguese, be my guest.) Best I can see, whenever others object to [U.S.] Americans calling themselves Americans (who really are the only folks who use that term for themselves, spelt as in English), it's purely because they want to stick it to Americans. Michael McNeil Anyway, in a computer context I think that -mm-dd is a good design, because I'ts easier to sort and organize by a script in a cronological order. As it may cause a lot of confusion, I assume that one way is to use a tag to identify date format use, like GMT-3 when we write about time. On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 03/17/2010 09:18 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: Absolutely. But Americans don't expect this kind of stuff to make sense, because they're used to having a different way of measuring everything, while in the rest of the world we're used to the metric system so we assume things make sense. So an American wouldn't necessarily consider -dd-mm inconceivable while people from elsewhere probably would and just assume -mm-dd. I think you're generalizing to some potentially non-existant superset of a population that may or may not read internet drafts. I'm really not sure that's relevant. A group in my organization (based in the uk no less) was just hosed by a windows api that represents months using their spelling and is therefore locale dependant, I'd rather prefer rfc-3339, somehow rather than worrying that the report for the month of февраль din't get generated. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02 (and what time is it)
On Mar 18, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: On 18 mar 2010, at 17.38, Marshall Eubanks wrote: This is backwards. Most astronomers I know regard UTC as a nuisance. In their calculations, astronomers use TAI (or, if they need to know the rotation of the Earth, UT1). Solar system ephemeris work uses ephemeris time, for historical reasons (ET − TAI = 32.184 seconds). GPS internally uses GPS time, which has the leap second adjustment appropriate for the start of the series in 1980, supposedly because the GPS program office didn't understand leap seconds (TAI - GPS = 19 seconds). Hmm...the signal for the GPS include the difference nowadays, right? This is the internal time standard. GPS receivers report UTC. Marshall But, the largest problem I think are daylight savings, and the fact the daylight savings rules change. We should from IETF point of view review the ical spec, and try to push timezone information away from the objects, and to a central repository. The timezone offset should be calculated based on the geographical location of the event. I.e. if I (or my application) know something happened at 13:32 on 2010-01-02 in Stockholm, that is I claim the best way of stating when something happened. Even better example is 13:32 at 2123-01-02 in Stockholm, as the chance Stockholm still exists in 2123 is higher than Stockholm use the same daylight savings rule then compared with today. Of course one should be able to say explicit time related to UTC (or TAI ;-) ) as well, but...I am tired of all applications that do the wrong thing. Specifically in user interfaces. Patrik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02 (and what time is it)
On 18 mar 2010, at 20.04, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Hmm...the signal for the GPS include the difference nowadays, right? This is the internal time standard. GPS receivers report UTC. That was exactly my point. The device get the internal time, and then correct it according to the difference that is overlay in the control channel, and then report UTC? I.e. one does not have to re-program/re-configure the device(s) every time a leap second is added/removed (added at the moment...). Patrik PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Well the US pint is 16 fluid oz which is 1 lb of water. Not quite, it's about 4% out. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Now, it is true that Ken Seidelmann is an astronomer, and he is against the change, but that is mostly in a if is isn't broke, don't fix it mode, and also because he is thinking of the long term (in 500 to 600 years the UT1-TAI offset should be order an hour, and people can be expected to start complaining). UT1 - TAI = 1h is more like 1000 years. See http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/dutc.html#dutctable I used to say that computer time should be TAI (closest to the actual clocks, easy to calculate elapsed times), but that never seem to get any traction. At the moment it's best to see what the interminable and impenetrable ITU-R process decides. You never know, the Unix time_t and NTP model of time might turn out to have been the right thing all along :-) Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02 (and what time is it)
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Patrik Fältström wrote: We should from IETF point of view review the ical spec, and try to push timezone information away from the objects, and to a central repository. The timezone offset should be calculated based on the geographical location of the event. Yes. http://fanf.livejournal.com/104586.html I.e. if I (or my application) know something happened at 13:32 on 2010-01-02 in Stockholm, that is I claim the best way of stating when something happened. Even better example is 13:32 at 2123-01-02 in Stockholm, as the chance Stockholm still exists in 2123 is higher than Stockholm use the same daylight savings rule then compared with today. Yes, though you need a disambiguation flag for times when the clocks go back. In general RFC 3339 (i.e. date + time + UTC offset) is right for recording timestamps of events that have occurred, but wrong for scheduling human events in the future. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD.___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
I was just referring about one of last posts were someone had a mistake about American definition and South America is America too, not only United States. :) We call ourself as Brazillian, ou melhor, Brasileiros! :) In portuguese, the best definition for United States people is Estadosunidenses, but it's not very common and that definition is mostly used in academic range. On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Michael Edward McNeil memcne...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/3/18 Alfredo Dal´Ava Júnior alfredo.dal...@gmail.com I'm American from Brazil we always use dd/mm/ :-) So, that's how Brazilians refer to themselves and each other: I'm an American? And even if so (which I very much doubt), spelled that way as in American [sic] English? Yeah, sure. (If you want to call yourselves Americanos or however it would be spelt in Brazilian Portuguese, be my guest.) Best I can see, whenever others object to [U.S.] Americans calling themselves Americans (who really are the only folks who use that term for themselves, spelt as in English), it's purely because they want to stick it to Americans. Michael McNeil Anyway, in a computer context I think that -mm-dd is a good design, because I'ts easier to sort and organize by a script in a cronological order. As it may cause a lot of confusion, I assume that one way is to use a tag to identify date format use, like GMT-3 when we write about time. On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: On 03/17/2010 09:18 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: Absolutely. But Americans don't expect this kind of stuff to make sense, because they're used to having a different way of measuring everything, while in the rest of the world we're used to the metric system so we assume things make sense. So an American wouldn't necessarily consider -dd-mm inconceivable while people from elsewhere probably would and just assume -mm-dd. I think you're generalizing to some potentially non-existant superset of a population that may or may not read internet drafts. I'm really not sure that's relevant. A group in my organization (based in the uk no less) was just hosed by a windows api that represents months using their spelling and is therefore locale dependant, I'd rather prefer rfc-3339, somehow rather than worrying that the report for the month of февраль din't get generated. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Mar 18, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Well quite, I said that it illustrated the mode of argument, not that the arguments were valid. The arguments made on behalf of 'astronomers' are of course made by assertion without bothering to ask what astronomers might think. Every time someone proposes removing some archaic piece of junk from the Internet specs we have people saying 'but its being used in rural Africa'. I saw that argument being made seriously with respect to UUNET bang path mail routing when it was finally being euthanized.. And the adage 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', is invariably used after someone has asserted that something is broken. So a more honest version of the usage would be 'If I don't think your problem matters, don't fix it'. The point about the leap seconds is that the same phrase can be used to support both the status quo (constantly changing the measurement of time in unpredictable ways) and the proposed change (stop adding leap seconds). And people whose interests are in preserving the status quo for the sake of the status quo can always dismiss the claims of the people who were not at the table when the original decision was made. Unless the earth is slowing down faster than I thought, it would be several thousand years before the accumulated error is as much as an hour. But since we never use UTC time for daily use, why would this matter? UTC _is_ clock time - local time is UTC +- so many hours. That's the whole point of having time zones. Regards Marshall We always use local time. Making UTC time slip constantly means that we need three separate time systems: TAI, UTC and Local when all we really need is one fixed series and a second one to make up the adjustment. On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote: On Mar 18, 2010, at 12:00 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Well the US pint is 16 fluid oz which is 1 lb of water. The UK pint is 20 so a pint of water is a pound and a quarter. Go figure. But since we are on the subject of time, why accept UTC as the basis for Internet time? Leap seconds are unpredictable and lead to system errors. The only group with a colorable benefit from leap seconds are astronomers, the one group that might be expected to be able to fix leap seconds retrospectively. The ITU has been discussing plans to abandon leap seconds in perpetuity, but the astronomers always seem to win in the end. If we moved from UTC to Internet Time, we could abolish leap seconds. This is backwards. Most astronomers I know regard UTC as a nuisance. In their calculations, astronomers use TAI (or, if they need to know the rotation of the Earth, UT1). Solar system ephemeris work uses ephemeris time, for historical reasons (ET - TAI = 32.184 seconds). GPS internally uses GPS time, which has the leap second adjustment appropriate for the start of the series in 1980, supposedly because the GPS program office didn't understand leap seconds (TAI - GPS = 19 seconds). The push to create and maintain UTC came primarily from mariners various navies, who wanted to be able to do celestial navigation using civil time (i.e., to treat UTC as an approximation of UT1, so that you could do km level celestial navigation using time straight from NTP or WWV). Now, with GPS/Glonass/Galileo, this seems largely moot. Now, it is true that Ken Seidelmann is an astronomer, and he is against the change, but that is mostly in a if is isn't broke, don't fix it mode, and also because he is thinking of the long term (in 500 to 600 years the UT1-TAI offset should be order an hour, and people can be expected to start complaining). The biggest thing stopping any change is apathy (and the aforementioned if is isn't broke, don't fix it). This site has a lot of information on this subject http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/nc1985wp7a.html I used to say that computer time should be TAI (closest to the actual clocks, easy to calculate elapsed times), but that never seem to get any traction. Regards Marshall OK, I am not seriously proposing the IETF try to do this (well not unless we get into a real fight with the ITU). But if you read some of the idiotic arguments advanced in favor of introducing random, unpredictable changes into the measurement of time, they are rather interesting. There are astronomers who seem to think the earth revolves around them. There are dire predictions that stopping fiddling with the time system would be a 'major change'. Every argument is thrown out, regardless of whether it makes any sense. People who point out that leap seconds really do cost real money are poo-pooed as having insignificant importance in such lofty debates. Quite a few of the protagonists attempt to claim it is only the ignorance and stupidity of the objectors to leap seconds that makes them unable to see the reason that they are essential. Over the course of a year, the
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
In message a123a5d61003170838s440bacddudb791a909cd5e...@mail.gmail.com, Phill
ip Hallam-Baker writes:
But the order on the stack is year, month, day!
And the month is *between* the day and the year. Nothing illogical with
this order.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Robert Kisteleki rob...@ripe.net wrote:
On 2010.03.13. 19:23, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 05:13:41PM +0100,
=A0Arnt Gulbrandsena...@gulbrandsen.priv.no =A0wrote
=A0a message of 17 lines which said:
Those are RFC 3339 dates.
It took thirteen messages for someone to notice that there is an IETF
standard for dates and that the IETF uses it on its own Web
pages... People should spend more time reading published RFCs :-}
Fair enough. Inspired by this I actually read the RFC. I find it quite
amusing that in an RFC that basically says thou shalt always use
-MM-DD, the actual code in appendix B is the following:
char *day_of_week(int day, int month, int year)
{
...
}
Robert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-- =
-- =
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 14 mrt 2010, at 1:09, Phillips, Addison wrote: There is also a difference between regularized usage and formats derived by well-meaning people based on their own experience (i.e. a European might very well think first of ydm, being used to seeing the day preceding the month). No way. Year-month-day makes sense because it matches the way we parse numbers. Day-month-year makes sense because that's the usual way to write it down. All other ways to do it, including using only two digits for the year, are confusing, ambiguous or both. For instance, even if I know that 4/7 is supposed to be the seventh of april it confuses me, and often you don't know so it's also ambiguous. I know that some people feel it's important to make the IETF website easier to grok for outsiders. But if someone can't figure yout 2010-01-02 then maybe they're not our audience. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 08:28, Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.comwrote: (Although the exposure to non-standard ways of doing things may make this harder for Americans.) Since Americans habitually use month-day order anyway, why would -MM-DD be especially difficult for them? It's Europeans and others who typically use day-month order that would seem likely to incur difficulties -- except that putting the year first is a pretty glaring clue that the order shouldn't be regarded as it usually is for them. Michael McNeil ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 17 mrt 2010, at 17:02, Michael Edward McNeil wrote: (Although the exposure to non-standard ways of doing things may make this harder for Americans.) Since Americans habitually use month-day order anyway, why would -MM-DD be especially difficult for them? It's Europeans and others who typically use day-month order that would seem likely to incur difficulties -- except that putting the year first is a pretty glaring clue that the order shouldn't be regarded as it usually is for them. Absolutely. But Americans don't expect this kind of stuff to make sense, because they're used to having a different way of measuring everything, while in the rest of the world we're used to the metric system so we assume things make sense. So an American wouldn't necessarily consider -dd-mm inconceivable while people from elsewhere probably would and just assume -mm-dd. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 17 mrt 2010, at 14:59, Yao Jiankang wrote: But if someone can't figure yout 2010-01-02 then maybe they're not our audience. there are two kinds of audience: those who understand 2010-01-02 by usual way and those who understand 2010-01-02 by unusual way. your logic reasoning seems to be simlar to: if you don't understand the ietf draft (ietf rfc, ietf discussion, .), you are not ietf audience. There needs to be a healthy balance between the effort expended to make something clear and the effort expended to understand something. RFCs can get pretty complex. Someone who can't figure out what 2010-01-02 is supposed to mean with all the resources of the internet available to him/her is going to have a hard time understanding RFCs. An anthropologist may approach the situation open minded and don't make any assumption about whether this is -mm-dd or -dd-mm, but anoyone with even the slightest exposure to engineering will understand that the only logical continuation of - can only be mm-dd. (Although the exposure to non-standard ways of doing things may make this harder for Americans.) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 2010.03.13. 19:23, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 05:13:41PM +0100,
Arnt Gulbrandsena...@gulbrandsen.priv.no wrote
a message of 17 lines which said:
Those are RFC 3339 dates.
It took thirteen messages for someone to notice that there is an IETF
standard for dates and that the IETF uses it on its own Web
pages... People should spend more time reading published RFCs :-}
Fair enough. Inspired by this I actually read the RFC. I find it quite
amusing that in an RFC that basically says thou shalt always use
-MM-DD, the actual code in appendix B is the following:
char *day_of_week(int day, int month, int year)
{
...
}
Robert
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
- Original Message - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com To: Phillips, Addison addi...@amazon.com Cc: John C Klensin j...@jck.com; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:11 PM Subject: Re: What day is 2010-01-02 On 14 mrt 2010, at 1:09, Phillips, Addison wrote: . But if someone can't figure yout 2010-01-02 then maybe they're not our audience. there are two kinds of audience: those who understand 2010-01-02 by usual way and those who understand 2010-01-02 by unusual way. your logic reasoning seems to be simlar to: if you don't understand the ietf draft (ietf rfc, ietf discussion, .), you are not ietf audience. :) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Michael Edward McNeil wrote: On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 08:28, Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com wrote: (Although the exposure to non-standard ways of doing things may make this harder for Americans.) Since Americans habitually use month-day order anyway, why would -MM-DD be especially difficult for them? It's Europeans and others who typically use day-month order that would seem likely to incur difficulties -- except that putting the year first is a pretty glaring clue that the order shouldn't be regarded as it usually is for them. Since this thread is about making things clearer, I would comment on your use of the word Americans. Americans means everyone in North and South America. I suspect what is meant here, is just the USA. Bob ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:29, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote: On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Michael Edward McNeil wrote: Since Americans habitually use month-day order anyway, why would -MM-DD be especially difficult for them? It's Europeans and others who typically use day-month order that would seem likely to incur difficulties -- except that putting the year first is a pretty glaring clue that the order shouldn't be regarded as it usually is for them. Since this thread is about making things clearer, I would comment on your use of the word Americans. Americans means everyone in North and South America. I suspect what is meant here, is just the USA. Reminds me of a little kid who runs up and proclaims (this actually happened to me), I'm not a kid! Kids are baby goats! Well, kids may be baby goats -- but they're also (sometimes brattish) young humans -- and most speakers of human languages quickly become cognizant of the fact that every spoken language has words with more than one accepted meaning, which are perfectly correct in context, viz. dictionary.comhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/American : A·mer·i·can [uh-*mer*-i-*kuh*n] 1. of or pertaining to the United States of America or its inhabitants: an *American* citizen. 2. of or pertaining to North or South America; of the Western Hemisphere: *the American continents*. 3. of or pertaining to the aboriginal Indians of North and South America, usually excluding the Eskimos Hm, I wonder which of those meanings could possibly have been intended here? Michael McNeil ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Mar 17, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Michael Edward McNeil wrote: On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:29, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote: On Mar 17, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Michael Edward McNeil wrote: Since Americans habitually use month-day order anyway, why would -MM-DD be especially difficult for them? It's Europeans and others who typically use day-month order that would seem likely to incur difficulties -- except that putting the year first is a pretty glaring clue that the order shouldn't be regarded as it usually is for them. Since this thread is about making things clearer, I would comment on your use of the word Americans. Americans means everyone in North and South America. I suspect what is meant here, is just the USA. Reminds me of a little kid who runs up and proclaims (this actually happened to me), I'm not a kid! Kids are baby goats! Well, kids may be baby goats -- but they're also (sometimes brattish) young humans -- and most speakers of human languages quickly become cognizant of the fact that every spoken language has words with more than one accepted meaning, which are perfectly correct in context, viz. dictionary.com: A·mer·i·can [uh-mer-i-kuhn] 1. of or pertaining to the United States of America or its inhabitants: an American citizen. 2. of or pertaining to North or South America; of the Western Hemisphere: the American continents. 3. of or pertaining to the aboriginal Indians of North and South America, usually excluding the Eskimos Hm, I wonder which of those meanings could possibly have been intended here? Michael McNeil Canadians like to think of themselves as fairly peaceful people, unless of course, you call them American. Or you are discussing hockey at the Olympics. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
would Thursday be an acceptable answer? /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa.anders...@ericsson.com Sr Strategy and Standards Managerl...@pi.nu Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13 +46 767 72 92 13 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 03/17/2010 09:18 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: Absolutely. But Americans don't expect this kind of stuff to make sense, because they're used to having a different way of measuring everything, while in the rest of the world we're used to the metric system so we assume things make sense. So an American wouldn't necessarily consider -dd-mm inconceivable while people from elsewhere probably would and just assume -mm-dd. I think you're generalizing to some potentially non-existant superset of a population that may or may not read internet drafts. I'm really not sure that's relevant. A group in my organization (based in the uk no less) was just hosed by a windows api that represents months using their spelling and is therefore locale dependant, I'd rather prefer rfc-3339, somehow rather than worrying that the report for the month of февраль din't get generated. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
+1. This is the only way that sorts properly, so the only one that makes sense. David On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote: On Mar 13, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? I would disagree. This follows an ISO standard, ISO 8601, and also happens to sort properly (in time order). From http://www.iso.org/iso/date_and_time_format ISO 8601 advises numeric representation of dates and times on an internationally agreed basis. It represents elements from the largest to the smallest element: year-month-day: • Calendar date is the most common date representation. It is: -MM-DD where is the year in the Gregorian calendar, MM is the month of the year between 01 (January) and 12 (December), and DD is the day of the month between 01 and 31. Example: 2003-04-01 represents the first day of April in 2003. So, 2010-01-02 is January 2, 2010. Regards Marshall ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
In the UK we use day-month-year. I have never seen year-day-month. day-month-year and year-month-day are both logical formats I can use. the us norm of year-day-month is the only one that I find profoundly illogical. I would usually require it to be re-written in an unambiguous form in company docs. For filenames I would recommend the ISO format as it collates correctly. Which is of course why our British version of the Internet had a naming system that worked in the logical order msb-lsb uk.co.ac.ox On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:13 AM, bill manning bmann...@isi.edu wrote: ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other cultures use yyddmm. If the IETF website used something like ISO-2010-01-02 maybe. This format is less confusing: 02jan2010 --bill On 13March2010Saturday, at 7:06, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Mar 13, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? I would disagree. This follows an ISO standard, ISO 8601, and also happens to sort properly (in time order). From http://www.iso.org/iso/date_and_time_format ISO 8601 advises numeric representation of dates and times on an internationally agreed basis. It represents elements from the largest to the smallest element: year-month-day: • Calendar date is the most common date representation. It is: -MM-DD where is the year in the Gregorian calendar, MM is the month of the year between 01 (January) and 12 (December), and DD is the day of the month between 01 and 31. Example: 2003-04-01 represents the first day of April in 2003. So, 2010-01-02 is January 2, 2010. Regards Marshall ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
--On Saturday, March 13, 2010 15:21 -0500 Phillips, Addison addi...@amazon.com wrote: (from digest) ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other cultures use yyddmm. If the IETF website used something like ISO-2010-01-02 maybe. Actually, for culturally-formatted date strings, cultures that prefer day-month order typically put the year at the trailing end. It turns out that cultures that put the year first in their local date format always use month-day order afterwards. Unicode's Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR) project lists several hundred locales, which you can browse for both the sheer diversity of forms (separators, abbreviations, calendars, and such) within the relative homogeneity of overall patterns (just three: mdy, dmy, and ymd). See: http://www.unicode.org/cldr Addison, While it doesn't change the conclusion, I've actually see many uses of ydm in the wild. I haven't taken the time to try to find out, but I've assumed that was the reason why the current version of ISO 8601 moved to one delimiter and it is hyphen from the permissiveness about delimiter choices in its predecessors. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: What day is 2010-01-02
As expected, I completely agree. It was only the sweeping statement to which I was taking exception. I'm certainly not aware of anyplace where ydm is the officially-preferred format although, like you, I wouldn't be especially surprised if someone found one. john --On Saturday, March 13, 2010 16:09 -0800 Phillips, Addison addi...@amazon.com wrote: John Klensin noted: While it doesn't change the conclusion, I've actually see many uses of ydm in the wild. I haven't taken the time to try to find out, but I've assumed that was the reason why the current version of ISO 8601 moved to one delimiter and it is hyphen from the permissiveness about delimiter choices in its predecessors. Normally I hesitate before making sweeping statements like that :-). In this case, I omitted, for the sake of brevity, noting that there are many MANY formats in use, especially in specialized fields such as accounting, and that, like most anything involving culture or language, one can find nearly any variation, no matter how strange or foreign it seems to outsiders, that is actually in customary use *somewhere*. There is also a difference between regularized usage and formats derived by well-meaning people based on their own experience (i.e. a European might very well think first of ydm, being used to seeing the day preceding the month). However, I'm unaware of any locale where 'ydm' is a *preferred* format, any casual or specialized usage notwithstanding. Probably someone will go find one, just to prove my first paragraph. In I18N, we usually say that the answer to any question begins with the phrase well, it depends... Finally, if one is reading standards, it behooves one to understand the customs and language adopted there. Date formats such as this are one such example, just as certain English words have special meaning in a standards context. The use of a well-known, unambiguous format, such as ISO 8601-derived dates, is sensible as such a standard as it is generally inoffensive, language/culture neutral, and recognizable. Addison Addison Phillips Chair -- W3C Internationalization WG Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
The second attachment is a macro that can be used in the wiki to annotate the dates, something like this: [[Date(2010-01-02)]] For example with a format of %a, %d %b %Y, the wiki will display this: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 Uhm, does it work in .txt files? What about PDF-A? :-) Robert ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 03/15/2010 08:39 AM, Robert Kisteleki wrote: The second attachment is a macro that can be used in the wiki to annotate the dates, something like this: [[Date(2010-01-02)]] For example with a format of %a, %d %b %Y, the wiki will display this: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 Uhm, does it work in .txt files? What about PDF-A? :-) No and no -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Personal email: m...@petit-huguenin.org Professional email: petit...@acm.org Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 3/13/2010 3:35 PM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Saturday, March 13, 2010 15:21 -0500 Phillips, Addison addi...@amazon.com wrote: This is a prime example of the IETF's waste of time and energy. The ISO 8601 date standard is the obvious answer and yet this convo is still going... Todd (from digest) ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other cultures use yyddmm. If the IETF website used something like ISO-2010-01-02 maybe. Actually, for culturally-formatted date strings, cultures that prefer day-month order typically put the year at the trailing end. It turns out that cultures that put the year first in their local date format always use month-day order afterwards. Unicode's Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR) project lists several hundred locales, which you can browse for both the sheer diversity of forms (separators, abbreviations, calendars, and such) within the relative homogeneity of overall patterns (just three: mdy, dmy, and ymd). See: http://www.unicode.org/cldr Addison, While it doesn't change the conclusion, I've actually see many uses of ydm in the wild. I haven't taken the time to try to find out, but I've assumed that was the reason why the current version of ISO 8601 moved to one delimiter and it is hyphen from the permissiveness about delimiter choices in its predecessors. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf attachment: tglassey.vcf___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
Julian Reschke wrote: On 13.03.2010 16:13, bill manning wrote: ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other cultures use yyddmm. If the IETF website used something like ISO-2010-01-02 maybe. This format is less confusing: 02jan2010 As far as I recall -MM-DD was specifically chosen because it's unambiguous; no widely used date format uses hyphens and has the ordering different. Just get used to it. And while at it, switch to 24h :-) IETF Meeting agendas have long been using 24h, but desperately lacks the GMT offset for the Meeting location. It would be highly appreciated if the secretariat put in the GMT timezone offset into the Meeting agenda that applies to the meeting location -- because that is what you need when want to listen to the audio stream or participate through jabber in real time remotely. The spring IETF is often very close to the winter time - daylight savings time transition, and that date differs between countries. While it is simple and consistent within the EU, it appears to vary within the US. The IETF Meeting Agenda uses the middle-endian US date format, but fortunately spells out month names for disabiguation. -Martin ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 15.03.2010 21:31, Martin Rex wrote: ... IETF Meeting agendas have long been using 24h, but desperately lacks the GMT offset for the Meeting location. ... Agreed. In the meantime, the ICS files generated on tools.ietf.org are useful to get reliable time information. Best regards, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 13.03.2010 23:34, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Mar 13, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:06:46AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote a message of 61 lines which said: This follows an ISO standard, ISO 8601, Sections 5.5 of RFC 3339 explain very well why you should not use ISO 8601 but its subset of RFC 3339. and also happens to sort properly (in time order). ISO 8601 does not really have this property, see section 5.1 of RFC 3339. Why not ? The complete 5.1 from RFC 3339 5.1. Ordering If date and time components are ordered from least precise to most precise, then a useful property is achieved. Assuming that the time zones of the dates and times are the same (e.g., all in UTC), expressed using the same string (e.g., all Z or all +00:00), and all times have the same number of fractional second digits, then the date and time strings may be sorted as strings (e.g., using the strcmp() function in C) and a time-ordered sequence will result. The presence of optional punctuation would violate this characteristic. - Also, note that we are talking about _dates_. While daylight savings time may complicate time sortability, it won't affect date sortability. ... I think the answer is that you need to select a consistent profile of ISO-8601 if you want to use string sorting. This is true both for ISO 8691 and the subset in in RFC 3339, the only difference seems to be that there are less options to consider. Best regards, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 13 Mar 2010, at 14:51, Cullen Jennings wrote: I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? Incredible discussion so far notwithstanding, I have long since given up trying to coach people using any form of numeric date representations and now just use RFC 5322 format for everything (even when doing so is inconveniently verbose sometimes). It probably isn't suitable for an international audience for whom the non-use or partial-use of English is a genuine concern, but it by far beats trying to unify the great divide among for instance British and American notations. I am an email junky anyway. Otherwise, of course the -mm-dd makes the most sense, especially in scripts or directory listings. Cheers, Sabahattin smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
--On Saturday, March 13, 2010 07:51 -0700 Cullen Jennings flu...@cisco.com wrote: I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? First of all, while there have been many efforts to make that ambiguous, there really is an international standard that specifies dates in strict little-endian order (e.g., MMDD) with optional delimiters (hyphen is now specified, but period and maybe some other things were, if I recall, permitted in earlier versions of the standard). Because of national conventions, variations, and plain stupidity, all [other] formats suffer from at least one of three problems: (1) Dependency on particular languages, e.g., 1 Jan 2002. (2) Visual confusability of particular characters in common fonts, e.g.,1 II 2010 could easily be mistaken, with the wrong choice of fonts, for 1 11 2020. (Curiously, while the appearance of Roman numerals most often indicates a month, I've occasionally seen the equivalent of XXI 1 2010 and its permutations in the wild.) (3) The permutation problem, which gets particularly severe if two-digit years are used, and which is the source of the ambiguity you point out. IMO, if we have a problem (and, if members of the community are confused, we probably do), the best solution is a short note on relevant pages (perhaps even in the footer of every page) that says, e.g., In accordance with International Standards, all dates on IETF web pages are either spelled out in full or in ISO 8601 format, i.e., -MM-DD. It is not trying to swap out one ambiguous format for another one that might be slightly less (or slightly more) ambiguous. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
I think the ISO standard is fine. Multi-letter month abbreviations are probably OK but are a little different in different languages. Lets stick with 2010-01-02. Thanks, Donald On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote: Cullen Jennings allegedly wrote on 03/13/2010 09:51 EST: I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? 2010-JAN-02 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 13.03.2010 15:51, Cullen Jennings wrote: I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? A better way than the ISO format? I don't think so. Best regards, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Mar 13, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? I would disagree. This follows an ISO standard, ISO 8601, and also happens to sort properly (in time order). From http://www.iso.org/iso/date_and_time_format ISO 8601 advises numeric representation of dates and times on an internationally agreed basis. It represents elements from the largest to the smallest element: year-month-day: • Calendar date is the most common date representation. It is: -MM-DD where is the year in the Gregorian calendar, MM is the month of the year between 01 (January) and 12 (December), and DD is the day of the month between 01 and 31. Example: 2003-04-01 represents the first day of April in 2003. So, 2010-01-02 is January 2, 2010. Regards Marshall ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
Cullen Jennings allegedly wrote on 03/13/2010 09:51 EST: I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? 2010-JAN-02 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other cultures use yyddmm. If the IETF website used something like ISO-2010-01-02 maybe. This format is less confusing: 02jan2010 --bill On 13March2010Saturday, at 7:06, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Mar 13, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote: I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? I would disagree. This follows an ISO standard, ISO 8601, and also happens to sort properly (in time order). From http://www.iso.org/iso/date_and_time_format ISO 8601 advises numeric representation of dates and times on an internationally agreed basis. It represents elements from the largest to the smallest element: year-month-day: • Calendar date is the most common date representation. It is: -MM-DD where is the year in the Gregorian calendar, MM is the month of the year between 01 (January) and 12 (December), and DD is the day of the month between 01 and 31. Example: 2003-04-01 represents the first day of April in 2003. So, 2010-01-02 is January 2, 2010. Regards Marshall ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 2010.03.13. 15:51, Cullen Jennings wrote: I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? IMO ISO8601 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601) is the best thing since sliced bread, and I wish it was widely used in international contexts. I mean, I was always amazed when people write 03-04-05 and expect others to know what they mean... BTW, the answer is: Saturday. Robert ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
What day is 2010-01-02
I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 13.03.2010 16:13, bill manning wrote: ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other cultures use yyddmm. If the IETF website used something like ISO-2010-01-02 maybe. This format is less confusing: 02jan2010 As far as I recall -MM-DD was specifically chosen because it's unambiguous; no widely used date format uses hyphens and has the ordering different. Just get used to it. And while at it, switch to 24h :-) Best regards, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
Cullen Jennings writes: I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? Those are RFC 3339 dates. Tell him to write a draft-rfc3339bis if he's unhappy with RFC 3339. If he thinks that's unreasonable, explain that you're being restrained, and that his proper punishment would be to specify imperial replacements for kilobyte, megabit and their ilk. Arnt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
bill manning bmanning at ISI dot EDU wrote: ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other cultures use yyddmm. Which cultures are those? -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, John C Klensin wrote: there really is an international standard that specifies dates in strict little-endian order (e.g., MMDD) That's big endian :-) Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Tony Finch wrote: On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, John C Klensin wrote: there really is an international standard that specifies dates in strict little-endian order (e.g., MMDD) That's big endian :-) And it's stored in octets, not bytes (UTF-8 with a lang tag of course) :-) BTW Tony - that is an awesome email address speaking of confusing representations. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 05:13:41PM +0100, Arnt Gulbrandsen a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no wrote a message of 17 lines which said: Those are RFC 3339 dates. It took thirteen messages for someone to notice that there is an IETF standard for dates and that the IETF uses it on its own Web pages... People should spend more time reading published RFCs :-} ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:06:46AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote a message of 61 lines which said: This follows an ISO standard, ISO 8601, Sections 5.5 of RFC 3339 explain very well why you should not use ISO 8601 but its subset of RFC 3339. and also happens to sort properly (in time order). ISO 8601 does not really have this property, see section 5.1 of RFC 3339. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 13.03.2010 19:30, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:06:46AM -0500, Marshall Eubankst...@americafree.tv wrote a message of 61 lines which said: This follows an ISO standard, ISO 8601, Sections 5.5 of RFC 3339 explain very well why you should not use ISO 8601 but its subset of RFC 3339. On the other hand, RFC 3339 refers to an outdated version of ISO 8601, and probably should be updated. and also happens to sort properly (in time order). ISO 8601 does not really have this property, see section 5.1 of RFC 3339. Nor does RFC 3339's format (as it allows different notations for the timezone offset). Best regards, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
For me, the best reason to keep dates in the format of: MMDD is that if you name your files in this way, when you do a directory list, files get sorted in alphabetical order So if only for this reason, this is why its the ONLY convention I will ever use, even if I decide to learn a third language. For those who care, being in French Canada, its very important that the date be labelled in the following format DDMM For the last 10 years, I have abandoned this way of dealing with dates, and I am through about 70 people at the office now, teaching them why it make sense to name files in the format of DDMM Regards, -=Francois=- On 2010-03-13, at 10:17 AM, John C Klensin wrote: --On Saturday, March 13, 2010 07:51 -0700 Cullen Jennings flu...@cisco.com wrote: I just got abused by someone reading the IESG web pages and pointing out dates like 2010-01-02 , are confusing. Is there a better way to do dates that we should be using on the ietf.org web pages? First of all, while there have been many efforts to make that ambiguous, there really is an international standard that specifies dates in strict little-endian order (e.g., MMDD) with optional delimiters (hyphen is now specified, but period and maybe some other things were, if I recall, permitted in earlier versions of the standard). Because of national conventions, variations, and plain stupidity, all [other] formats suffer from at least one of three problems: (1) Dependency on particular languages, e.g., 1 Jan 2002. (2) Visual confusability of particular characters in common fonts, e.g.,1 II 2010 could easily be mistaken, with the wrong choice of fonts, for 1 11 2020. (Curiously, while the appearance of Roman numerals most often indicates a month, I've occasionally seen the equivalent of XXI 1 2010 and its permutations in the wild.) (3) The permutation problem, which gets particularly severe if two-digit years are used, and which is the source of the ambiguity you point out. IMO, if we have a problem (and, if members of the community are confused, we probably do), the best solution is a short note on relevant pages (perhaps even in the footer of every page) that says, e.g., In accordance with International Standards, all dates on IETF web pages are either spelled out in full or in ISO 8601 format, i.e., -MM-DD. It is not trying to swap out one ambiguous format for another one that might be slightly less (or slightly more) ambiguous. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Julian Reschke wrote: On 13.03.2010 19:30, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: Sections 5.5 of RFC 3339 explain very well why you should not use ISO 8601 but its subset of RFC 3339. [because RFC 3339 is simpler] On the other hand, RFC 3339 refers to an outdated version of ISO 8601, and probably should be updated. Happily ISO 8601-2004 is simpler than ISO 8601-2000. One of the most significant deletions is the option for truncated representations i.e. where leading digits are omitted. Other than that most of the changes are improvements to the wording. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
(from digest) ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other cultures use yyddmm. If the IETF website used something like ISO-2010-01-02 maybe. Actually, for culturally-formatted date strings, cultures that prefer day-month order typically put the year at the trailing end. It turns out that cultures that put the year first in their local date format always use month-day order afterwards. Unicode's Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR) project lists several hundred locales, which you can browse for both the sheer diversity of forms (separators, abbreviations, calendars, and such) within the relative homogeneity of overall patterns (just three: mdy, dmy, and ymd). See: http://www.unicode.org/cldr This format is less confusing: 02jan2010 There are several benefits to using ISO 8601 (well, actually RFC 3339) which have already been reported on this thread, so I won't bludgeon the topic further. However, for those interested some useful links appear on here: http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/iso-date http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-date-format Regards, Addison Addison Phillips Chair -- W3C Internationalization WG Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
These technical answers are all great for use in Internet protocols [3339] but the scope of the question is web pages destined for humans to read and understand ... and some humans don't understand them. You could justify what's there now and ignore their problem, or (if your goal is communication) you could figure out how to write dates in ways that ordinary humans find unambiguous. I usually write something like 2010 Jan 02. It's not sortable but it's understood even by non-IETFers. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: On 13.03.2010 16:13, bill manning wrote: ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other cultures use yyddmm. If the IETF website used something like ISO-2010-01-02 maybe. This format is less confusing: 02jan2010 As far as I recall -MM-DD was specifically chosen because it's unambiguous; no widely used date format uses hyphens and has the ordering different. Exactly. Marshall Just get used to it. And while at it, switch to 24h :-) Best regards, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
In message 3e11e3d6-354f-4455-873d-c2ab68158...@americafree.tv, Marshall Euba nks writes: On Mar 13, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: On 13.03.2010 16:13, bill manning wrote: ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because other cultures use yyddmm. If the IETF website used something like ISO-2010-01-02 maybe. This format is less confusing: 02jan2010 As far as I recall -MM-DD was specifically chosen because it's unambiguous; no widely used date format uses hyphens and has the ordering different. Exactly. Marshall It's confusing but not ambigious. Just get used to it. And while at it, switch to 24h :-) Best regards, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On Mar 13, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:06:46AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv wrote a message of 61 lines which said: This follows an ISO standard, ISO 8601, Sections 5.5 of RFC 3339 explain very well why you should not use ISO 8601 but its subset of RFC 3339. and also happens to sort properly (in time order). ISO 8601 does not really have this property, see section 5.1 of RFC 3339. Why not ? The complete 5.1 from RFC 3339 5.1. Ordering If date and time components are ordered from least precise to most precise, then a useful property is achieved. Assuming that the time zones of the dates and times are the same (e.g., all in UTC), expressed using the same string (e.g., all Z or all +00:00), and all times have the same number of fractional second digits, then the date and time strings may be sorted as strings (e.g., using the strcmp() function in C) and a time-ordered sequence will result. The presence of optional punctuation would violate this characteristic. - Also, note that we are talking about _dates_. While daylight savings time may complicate time sortability, it won't affect date sortability. Regards Marshall ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
In message 4b9c0a6a.1010...@gmail.com, Scott Brim writes: These technical answers are all great for use in Internet protocols [3339] but the scope of the question is web pages destined for humans to read and understand ... and some humans don't understand them. You could justify what's there now and ignore their problem, or (if your goal is communication) you could figure out how to write dates in ways that ordinary humans find unambiguous. I usually write something like 2010 Jan 02. It's not sortable but it's understood even by non-IETFers. And even that can be confusing if English is not a language you understand. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: What day is 2010-01-02
John Klensin noted: While it doesn't change the conclusion, I've actually see many uses of ydm in the wild. I haven't taken the time to try to find out, but I've assumed that was the reason why the current version of ISO 8601 moved to one delimiter and it is hyphen from the permissiveness about delimiter choices in its predecessors. Normally I hesitate before making sweeping statements like that :-). In this case, I omitted, for the sake of brevity, noting that there are many MANY formats in use, especially in specialized fields such as accounting, and that, like most anything involving culture or language, one can find nearly any variation, no matter how strange or foreign it seems to outsiders, that is actually in customary use *somewhere*. There is also a difference between regularized usage and formats derived by well-meaning people based on their own experience (i.e. a European might very well think first of ydm, being used to seeing the day preceding the month). However, I'm unaware of any locale where 'ydm' is a *preferred* format, any casual or specialized usage notwithstanding. Probably someone will go find one, just to prove my first paragraph. In I18N, we usually say that the answer to any question begins with the phrase well, it depends... Finally, if one is reading standards, it behooves one to understand the customs and language adopted there. Date formats such as this are one such example, just as certain English words have special meaning in a standards context. The use of a well-known, unambiguous format, such as ISO 8601-derived dates, is sensible as such a standard as it is generally inoffensive, language/culture neutral, and recognizable. Addison Addison Phillips Chair -- W3C Internationalization WG Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 03/13/2010 02:24 PM, Ofer Inbar wrote: Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote: These technical answers are all great for use in Internet protocols [3339] but the scope of the question is web pages destined for humans to read and understand ... and some humans don't understand them. You could justify what's there now and ignore their problem, or (if your goal is communication) you could figure out how to write dates in ways that ordinary humans find unambiguous. I usually write something like 2010 Jan 02. It's not sortable but it's understood even by non-IETFers. I've been using -MM-DD dates everywhere I can for many years, and the email that opened this thread was the first time I had ever heard of anyone ever finding such a date ambiguous. Given the various advantages of such dates, I think we need to be convinced that there's an actual problem before considering changing them. the nice thing about standards is there are so many to choose from... joe...@chickenhawk:~$ date --rfc-2822 Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:07:43 -0800 joe...@chickenhawk:~$ date --rfc-3339=date 2010-03-13 joe...@chickenhawk:~$ date +%s 1268525289 I know which of those I'd rather use in a script. Humans and scripts often access the same data, BTW. Easy-to-parse dates are advantageous. Matching international standards is also of some value. -- Cos ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: What day is 2010-01-02
John Klensin noted: ... It was only the sweeping statement to which I was taking exception. Sweeping generalizations in regard to language or culture are always wrong. ~Addison ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
On 2010-03-14 10:58, Scott Brim wrote: These technical answers are all great for use in Internet protocols [3339] but the scope of the question is web pages destined for humans to read and understand ... and some humans don't understand them. You could justify what's there now and ignore their problem, or (if your goal is communication) you could figure out how to write dates in ways that ordinary humans find unambiguous. I usually write something like 2010 Jan 02. It's not sortable but it's understood even by non-IETFers. In Russia, China, Arabic-writing countries, etc.? I've preferred the 2010-03-14 format (with or without the hypens) since 1977, when I found myself installing the 770517C release of an operating system. OK, that abbreviation does incorporate the Y2K bug, but when working in an industry generally befuddled by the ambiguity between European and American date order, it's without a doubt the best we can do for a globally understandable format. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
bill == bill manning bmann...@isi.edu writes: bill ISO not withstanding, its still confusing if only because bill other cultures use yyddmm. If the IETF website used something bill like ISO-2010-01-02 maybe. Only confusing for americas. The rest of us are confused by america usage. I got a bill from a US based company in 2001, due: 09-01-04 I wrote them a checque for 2009 January 4. -- ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ Kyoto Plus: watch the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE then sign the petition. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: What day is 2010-01-02
John, the best solution is a short note on relevant pages (perhaps even in the footer of every page) that says, e.g., In accordance with International Standards, all dates on IETF web pages are either spelled out in full or in ISO 8601 format, i.e., -MM-DD. It is not trying to swap out one ambiguous format for another one that might be slightly less (or slightly more) ambiguous. +1 Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
