>So I do what I can. I don't even ask what time format something belongs in. I just write ISO8601 by default. If someone complains then I point them to the international standard and ask whether we want to be an internationally standards-compliant company.
This is my approach as well. I've never gotten a complaint about it, which proves to me that the format is understandable AND unambiguous.
How can you take an international standard seriously when it is based on the number of years since some prophet of some specific religion was thought to be born?
Re:ISO 8601: a better date format
by oxfeed65261 on Friday February 26, 2021 @05:28PM
(#26280608)
Can you suggest a better alternative which you would take seriously? A Kelvin-like year based on the approximate date of the Big Bang (as CE/BCE is based on an approximate year)? Logical but unwieldy.
I’m down for the years to be counted from the storming of the Bastille, personally...
Re:ISO 8601: a better date format
by Mauricebranagh on Friday February 26, 2021 @06:47AM
(#26273827)
Point them at the fiasco where NASA mixed up Imperia and Metric.
And also ask but why are we not targeting international customers.
I have indeed done the former when discussing why I use meters instead of feet.
The latter was an ice rink whose customers are very physically local. Local teams do compete internationally but the ice rink itself isn't an international org.
As an American I can fully confirm that 3/11/2011 is obnoxiously ambiguous. It affects us. But most Americans (particularly outside of science / engineering fields) are too thick-headed to recognize the problem or think about ways to improve it.
So I do what I can. I don't even ask what time format something belongs in. I just write ISO8601 by default. If someone complains then I point them to the international standard and ask whether we want to be an internationally standards-compliant company.
One manager said that our customers aren't international. It was a reasoned argument and I like having customers. But all others drop the argument at "international company" and "standards-compliant"