Makes absolutely no sense, can we change it to MM/DD/YY? Or is the extra YY there to avoid Y2.1K?
|
-2
|
||||||||||||
|
|
3
|
It's YYYY/MM/DD because that way the lexicographic ordering is the same as chronological ordering. This is the sort of thing programmers and people like me care about. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
2
|
It is also universally recognised. If you use MM/DD/YYYY as is common in the States this can be confused with DD/MM/YYYY which is commonly used in Europe. |
||
|
|
|
1
|
What's the deal with the Day slotted between the Month and the Year? It's a little presumptuous for the smallest unit to be skipped ahead of by the second largest unit in the date. YYYY/MM/DD makes more sense than MM/DD/YYYY since you're going from largest to smallest on the calendar units. |
||
|
|
|
0
|
A classic example of asking for the century, is calculating the age for someone who enters: 08/02/09 as their date of birth (which is the valid short date format in my locale). specifying the century clears up some ambiguity: 08/02/1909, but for people who don't read the documentation, it is difficult to spot incorrect data. Putting it in most significant segment first can then be checked (and errored on if appropriate), and it forces people to think/read the documentation. |
||
|
|
