Daylight Savings & Logs

[Thomas D Arman]

I am sorry I included slashes in my initial e-mail, it is a Red Herring. 

All I was really getting at was we should include:

4 digit date, 2 digit month, 2 digit day, [HHMM[SS[mmm]]]

it that order to allow for sorting.

Separators and other decorations are optional, as long as they are 
consistent.

Tom


xtensionlist-bounces at shed.com wrote on 03/11/2008 01:17:33 PM:

> One possible problem is that I think some OSes disallow slashes in 
> file names. Even if they're allowed, they're potentially confusing 
> and a bit uncomfortable.
> 
> Personally I prefer 2008-03-13 (with optional added time of day in a 
> compliant format).
> 
> This is also the format that MySQL and presumably other SQL databases 
> use for dates. Why reinvent things?
> 
> On Mar 11, 2008, at 10:01 AM, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > Formatting the date in YYYY/MM/DD is easy to do and easily sorted 
> > by computers.
> >
> > For the 911 system we used YYYY/MM/DD/incident number. I have over 
> > 250,000 incidents in my data base and can sort them all with one 
> > sort field.
> >
> > My pictures are like this also as Heather mentioned. They are so 
> > much easier to sort and find.
> >
> > With YYYY/MM/DD it is easy to  concatenate times in the end if 
> > needed for charts and so on.
> >
> > Or we could have preferences of different date and times options 
> > for those that want other formats.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > On Mar 11, 2008, at 5:40 AM, heather james wrote:
> >
> >> Let me second that kind of date stamp format - a few years back I 
> >> started
> >> sorting digital photos in the format 20080311, and I have since 
> >> sorted other
> >> files in the same way - it just makes a lot of sense  once you get 
> >> used to
> >> it, and very easy to pull old files out when the year rolls over.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >>    Heather
> >>
> >> On 3/11/08, ned+xtension at mrochek.com <ned+xtension at mrochek.com> 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Why not use a format conforming to ISO 8601?
> >>>
> >>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This is definitely the right direction, but the problem is ISO 
> >>> 8061 leaves
> >>> things a bit too open. I recommend taking a look at RFC 3339, 
> >>> available
> >>> here:
> >>>
> >>>    http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3339.txt
> >>>
> >>> This profiles ISO 8601 down to something reasonably consistent.
> >>>
> >>>                                 Ned
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >>             -= )-(eather =-
> >>        =------------------------------=
> >>         thewebgal at gmail.com
> >>
> >> Don't anthropomorphize computers.
> >> They hate that.
> >>> ==========================================<
> >
>