Walter:

Not true.  You need to know that the format written is using the ISO 
standard, otherwise it still could be May 7 or July 5.

In Quebec, the french may use dd-mm-yy while the US uses mm-dd-yyyy and 
either one is useless unless one knows the standard being used.

Coming from the HP world, I have always used yyyymmddhhmmss because it 
is the only way to sort the information without specifing having to 
extract the year, month, hour, minute and seconds from the data.  I am 
so used to it that is the facto format.  All other formats should be 
discarded as an unknown format.

So folks, either use the ISO yyyymmdd format or its exacting long form 
of  May 25, 2009.

My 2 cents,

Olav Kappert
IOMIT International.

Walter J. Murray wrote:

>James writes,
>
>  
>
>>the nice thing about standards for date formats is that you have so
>>    
>>
>many 
>  
>
>>to choose from...
>>    
>>
>
>While it's true that a great many date formats have been used over the
>years, I know of only one that could be called "standard", in the sense
>of having been adopted by a national or international standards body.
>That would be ISO 8601.  
>
>When you see a date like 05/06/07, that might be May 6, 2007, or May 6,
>1907, or June 5, 2007, or June 7, 2005, or ... .  A date of "97 JAN 10"
>might not be meaningful to someone who doesn't read English.  But a date
>in ISO standard format, like 2009-05-07, leaves little room for
>ambiguity.
>
>Walter  
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>  
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *