Re^2: sorting dates in YYYYMMDD format

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: sorting dates in YYYYMMDD format by QM (Parson) on Jul 10, 2013 at 09:10 UTC
One of the great things about YYYYMMDD is that if you sort it lexicographically you get it properly sorted! Yes! This is what bugs me about all the international date "standards" -- none of them sort naturally. The only tweak I use is for human readability, YYYYMMmmmDD, where mmm is the 3 letter abbreviation (in the language of choice), which helps the mildly dyslexic distinguish 5 March and 3 May (though maybe that's the hardest one). -QM -- Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of	[reply]
Re^4: sorting dates in YYYYMMDD format by Anonymous Monk on Jul 10, 2013 at 13:13 UTC
Hos does a date in ISO 8601 format -- YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss (and variations) -- does not sort correctly? Or, by "international date "standards"" did you mean something else?	[reply]
Re^5: sorting dates in YYYYMMDD format by QM (Parson) on Jul 11, 2013 at 08:21 UTC
;) Cultural standards. From Europeans I've seen DDMMYY, from U.S. it's generally MMDDYY (and Canadians are conflicted). Heck, even Wikipedia's ISO 8601 has a section Related Standards, detailing the country-specific standards (that may or may not conform to ISO 8601). I suspect the major reason we have standards is because of TIMTOWTDI. I'm also reminded of XKCD's comment on standards. -QM -- Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of	[reply]
Re^5: sorting dates in YYYYMMDD format (Correction) by Anonymous Monk on Jul 11, 2013 at 10:15 UTC
"Hos does a date in ISO 8601 format -- YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss (and variations) -- does not sort correctly?" -- self. That horrible sentence should have been: "How do dates in ... -- YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss (and variations) -- not sort correctly?".	[reply]