Anonymous user
Talk:Date format: Difference between revisions
Let's make it ISO 8601
(→Input) |
(Let's make it ISO 8601) |
||
Line 3:
: The Forth and Perl examples, as written, print the current date and time. Seems like a good choice. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 15:02, 10 February 2008 (MST)
:: The page has been tagged as "This task has been clarified". But it has not been clarified. It still does not say how the date is given. I agree that current date would be a good choice, that should be added to the task description. --[[User:PauliKL|PauliKL]] 09:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::: If any output format is to be chosen then that should be one of ISO 8601, I suppose. --[[User:Dmitry-kazakov|Dmitry-kazakov]] 12:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
==Leading zeros==
While I'm sure that there should be no leading zeros in the format where words occur, I suspect that the intention is for Febrary 1st, 2008 to be formatted "2008-02-01" not "2008-2-1". Does the specification need to be altered to reflect this? --[[User:TBH|TBH]] 22:17, 8 February 2008 (MST)
:ISO 8601 requires leading zeros, but the task is still not clarified. Personally I think that it mangles two separate issues:
:* splitting a time stamp into fields, like month number, day of week etc in presence of a given time zone
:* formatted output of the fields
:Does it really matter if the output should be 01:02:2008, 2008/01/02, 1/II/2008 etc? --[[User:Dmitry-kazakov|Dmitry-kazakov]] 12:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
| |||