Forum Moderators: open
The confusion about GMT is many fold. In the summer time, all clocks in Britain do not display GMT, they show a time that is one hour ahead of 'GMT', called British Summer Time. The confusion is that some people outside of Britain know what their own time zone is, and then try to calculate from the time on a British Clock. In summer they may end up with an answer that is incorrect by one hour, because they assumed that British clocks being in Britain would always display GMT. I have seen various web pages that attempt to show the 'time in GMT' but are showing a time that is an hour wrong.
It used to be that GMT was the 'base time zone' and all others worldwide were reckoned from it. In winter UK clocks do show 'GMT'. In summer they show 'GMT+0100' . The 'base time zone' is now UTC, and is not based on a geographical location.
I don't have a problem with people using the term 'GMT' solely as the British Winter Time time zone, and BST as the UK Summer Time Zone, but please note that GMT = UTC+0000 and BST = UTC+0100 . Similarly, the local time in New York is UTC-0500 in Winter and UTC-0400 in Summer due to the effects of Daylight Savings Time. Time Zones should be reckoned as to their offset from UTC.
> 2002-07-03 19:03:05 UTC-0700 should be:
> 2002-07-03T19:03:05-07:00 or:
If you are sending a DateTime to a machine then I heartily agree, however ISO 8601 is designed to be human readable. Where text is designed to be read by people, there really is no harm in stating separate date and time elements.
> 20020703190305-07
That is another form allowed by the standard. I would NOT advocate this for human reading, but it would be useful in the filenames of log files and so on.
>> For ISO8601 to be readily accepted by all would require that all countries in the world enact legislation to this end. Most countries simply won't bother. Many European countries will probably accept it grudgingly, but it will take several generations. Americans will most likely simply refuse, and will do what they did with metric weights and measures: invoke the First Amendment and claim it means they can express their dates in whatever form they choose. <<
The first steps have already been taken. In an earlier message I listed just a few places that have already adopted ISO 8601 as an official national standard. It covers at least 75 % of world population.
>> Since this discussion has started, and especially since I have been more or less told that YYYY-MM-DD is practically taking over the world, I have kept my eyes peeled for any evidence. I have not seen a single incidence of this format being used anywhere at all, except for a few I have been specifically pointed to in this thread. <<
Think of a date sometime in the last few years. Write it in the YYYY-MM-DD format, then search for it at [google.com...] . You'll see it returned in at least a quarter of the results. This was true for the ten different dates I tried.
I see that various Professional bodies such as IEEE and Chartered Surveyors and so on have already made a commitment to 'go metric' in the US. It does appear to be happening. Looking for the site I found that on (probably usma.org).
[edited by: g1smd at 2:20 pm (utc) on July 14, 2002]
UTC is based on geographical location. All time zones are based on geographical location. It is simply the name that has no geographical reference; but UTC is, basically, the time of day at 0° longtitude.
As for Google searches: compare a search for '24 January 2000' [google.com] with a search for '2002-01-24' [google.com].
Now imagine I am German. I speak no English. Which is more helpful to me: the results for 2000-01-24, or the results for 24 Januar 2002 [google.com]?
Of course the date I typed in is returned in SE results. It's supposed to, that's what a search engine is programmed to do.
NO. That is what 'Language="DE"' is for in Meta tags. By your argument searching for 'September' will miss all pages that only have 'Sep' or 'Sept'
> Of course the date I typed in is returned in SE results. It's supposed to, that's what a search engine is programmed to do.
You said, earlier, that the ISO format isn't used anywhere. My point was that if you use it as a search string, then you will see that it is already used in a very large number of places. Just because you haven't yet seen it, doesn't mean to say that it hasn't happened. It has.
> IEEE and Chartered Surveyors are both narrow professional fields.
These are just two that I could remember, there are many others. However, if all building work has to be drawn up in metric then anyone who works in the building trade is now exposed to this usage. That is a very large number of people. Likewise for all the other 'narrow' topics. Alltogether they all add up to a lot of people.
German pages containing 2002-01-24 [google.de] (approx 12,300 results)
German pages containing 24 Januar 2002 [google.de] (approx 496,000 results)
Few people outside of SE Asia think year-month-day. Few people will use that format in search engine enquiries. And you won't force them to, either. This is a simple fact of life which you, the webmaster, must cater for. You must think like your intended visitors, otherwise you will lose them.
You are advocating ISO on principle without thinking about your audience. (Actually, you are advocating part of the ISO specs; you're quite happy to abandon it when it comes to adding the time of day, for instance -- this is inconsistent, but that's not the point.) Few other things in life are standardized, why should dates be?
Do builders in the US really use the metric system? I'm not entirely convinced they do, but anyway that's still not a huge number of people and I can guarantee that they do not use the metric system in their everyday lives. Publish a recipe which calls for 300g flour and 25g butter, and Americans will be taking out their calculators (or trying a different site). So will a lot of Brits, actually, despite the fact that pounds and ounces are almost illegal.
Go the extra mile. Think of your audience. Using ISO dates will not affect your page rankings because so few people actually use that date format in search engine enquiries, except perhaps a few purist webmasters and scientists (and Koreans). Just a few extra keystrokes and you could make life so much easier for Mr and Ms Average-Surfer, and in most cases it's them you are catering for.
I can guarantee that Mr Average-Surfer will type a date like "16 March" into a Google search; and I can also guarantee that Frau Durchschnitts-Surferin will type "16 März" or, possibly, "16 Maerz". We are not going to change that, and if it makes life more difficult for us, well, that's why we charge so much for designing websites.
First date I found is on the home page:
at it reads:
23-28 September 2002, ISO 25e General Assembly in Stockholm
Well, to be a standard, maybe we should all do what they are doing. :)
The confusion is that some people outside of Britain know what their own time zone is, and then try to calculate from the time on a British Clock. In summer they may end up with an answer that is incorrect by one hour, because they assumed that British clocks being in Britain would always display GMT.
Drat! (Guilty as charged.)
But how much problem does this lack of information really cause? At most, my guessing will have me off by an hour, right? Since I'm not doing rocket science, I guess that's not a problem. And for those actually doing the rocket science, they probably know this fact.
This is NASA's Worldwide Space Launches 2002 page:
And the very first launch of the year was on Jan. 16
This is details of the Mars 2001 launch from page:
Launch Date: 07-Apr-2001 (11:02 EDT)
If international orgs like ISO and interplanetary ones like NASA don't use ISO8601 there must be a reason. :)
Tony Blair online (www.number-10.gov.uk - but doesn't Tony actually live at number 11??)
"15 July 2002"
Indian Parliament's most recent press release (http://alfa.nic.in/) listed as:
"JULY 12, 2002"
Japan's news about their Prime Minister (http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/index-e.html):
"July 8, 2002"
Each time g1smd posts a rebuttal, I end up adding another (--) to my distance meter. ;)
If nothing else, have I at least convinced everyone here to remove all dates like 03-02-01 and 03-02-2001 off their pages, replacing them with something else ?
I'd prefer 2002-07-01 or 2002 July 01, but if you want 01 July 2002 or July 01, 2002 then these are at least readable by English speaking people whereas 01-02-03 will always be misunderstood by many readers.
You'll see more German websites adopting YYYY-MM-DD as time goes on, as in 1996 the DIN 5008 standard for typographical rules in documents replaced 20 VII 2002 formats with 2002-07-20 formats. This is gaining ground, but like metric will take a generation to achieve.
ISO use of the format is varied. It is used on all official documents, and in parts of their website, however not all yet.
You'll see more German websites adopting YYYY-MM-DD as time goes on, as in 1996 the DIN 5008 standard for typographical rules in documents replaced 20 VII 2002 formats with 2002-07-20 formats. This is gaining ground, but like metric will take a generation to achieve.
Even in official business correspondence, it is usual to write "Samstag, den 20. Juli 2002".
If international orgs like ISO and interplanetary ones like NASA don't use ISO8601 there must be a reason.
YYYY-MM-DD format is used, for example, on the timestamps on the images themselves (almost in ISO format, but not quite, dammit), because those dates are meant for members of the scientific community (one of the narrow fields where members have agreed to use the ISO format).
A strange format (e.g. 2002 June 9) is used on, for example, umbra.nascom.nasa.gov, which is a page designed for (I guess) amateur astronomers. Note the lack of design and the use of much technical jargon ("With the activation of the CELIAS CTOF sensor, all SOHO isntruments are operating as they were before the thermal reconfiguration and emergency Sun reacquisition (ESR) of 2002 February 5") -- this suggests that this is for people who understand the basics of astronomy and probably (but not necessarily) familiar with ISO. But the webmaster clearly has tried to cater for those who aren't by writing the month in full.
Compare this to the page on the Mars Mission. The design of the page (a bit too much, if you ask me) and the much simpler, explanatory language ("Using a process called aerobraking, the spacecraft skimmed the surface of the Martian atmosphere 332 times over nearly three months to slow down instead of firing its thrusters") suggests that this is a site for people who don't know the technical stuff and just want to know if NASA has found evidence of bug-eyed green monsters, or whether one day we might be living on Mars. For that reason you will find the dates in a format more familiar to laymen.
Interestingly for a site by a US government organization, the dates are in date-month-year format.
NASA have basically tailored the way they present dates according to their audience, viz:
2002-03-05 for members of the scientific community
2002 March 05 for amateur astronomers
5-Mar-2002 (or other more verbose formats) for everybody else
July 17, 2002
If you include the day of the week (I do), spell it out, as follows:
Wednesday, July 17, 2002
If you include time, include the time zone, as follows:
10:46 PM PDT
Use the commonly recognized AM/PM or a.m./p.m. or A.M./P.M.
However, usability standards recommend time be EXcluded unless the content is time sensitive, such as stock quotes or news articles added/updated several times a day.
