> in the format 02/18/1993
Is this DD/MM/YYYY or MM/DD/YYYY? I can tell from the 18 that it's the latter, but that convention isn't universal. I'd recommend YYYY/MM/DD as a less ambiguous format, but I don't have a perfect answer.
Is this DD/MM/YYYY or MM/DD/YYYY? I can tell from the 18 that it's the latter, but that convention isn't universal. I'd recommend YYYY/MM/DD as a less ambiguous format, but I don't have a perfect answer.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/...
or a text field with some code that converts vernacular dates to a structured format. I don't think users are going to be too weirded out at seeing "1997-04-15" and will probably learn to use that natively.
The hard part is that a lot of devs aren't aware that there's a standard and that standard is superior to the alternatives.
$ LANG=C date --date="01/02/03"
Thu Jan 2 00:00:00 EET 2003
$ LANG=de_AT.utf8 date --date="01/02/03"
Do 02 Jän 2003 00:00:00 EET
$ LANG=zh_HK.utf8 date --date="01/02/03"
2003年01月02日 星期四 00:00:00 EETStrictly, it is the extended form of the ISO 8601 calendar date format. (The basic format has no separators.)
ISO 8601 allows any of its date formats (calendar date, week date, or ordinal date) to be combined with a time representation for a combined date/time representation, it is inaccurate both to call any of the date formats part of the time format, and to call the calendar date format the format that is part of the combined date/time format.
(There's a reason why people who want to refer to a simple and consistent standard tend to choose RFC-3339 over ISO 8601.)