Talk:Date format: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(Let's make it ISO 8601) |
(→Input: High-five, Dmitry) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:: 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) |
:: 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) |
::: 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) |
||
::::ISO sounds like a great idea. If we want to make things the same across all languages, why not us a standard, right? --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 14:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Leading zeros== |
==Leading zeros== |
||
Revision as of 14:19, 3 October 2008
Input
I'm not exactly sure what is supposed to go on here. How is the date given? How would you like it formatted? I can give you POSIX time pretty easily in most languages...but I don't think you want that. --mwn3d 23:54, 10 November, 2007 (EST)
- The Forth and Perl examples, as written, print the current date and time. Seems like a good choice. --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. --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. --Dmitry-kazakov 12:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- ISO sounds like a great idea. If we want to make things the same across all languages, why not us a standard, right? --Mwn3d 14:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- If any output format is to be chosen then that should be one of ISO 8601, I suppose. --Dmitry-kazakov 12:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --PauliKL 09:39, 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? --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? --Dmitry-kazakov 12:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)