On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 08:13:20PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > Roger Leigh <rle...@codelibre.net> writes: > > > I, for example, use the date format '+%d %b %Y' (01 Aug 2009). The > > manual pages are human readable documentation. I think that nicely > > readable dates should be preferred here. > > This seems to falsely imply a necessary conflict between “nicely > readable dates” and “ISO 8601 date representations”. The fact that > they're simple and unambiguous, and to many readers interpretable > without further explanation, I think makes them a good candidate for > “nicely readable”.
This kind of conflict can be solved if the goal for ISO 8601 date representations was to compare dates: $ LC_ALL=C date -d'01 Aug 2009' Sat Aug 1 00:00:00 CEST 2009 $ LC_ALL=C date -d'2009-08-01' Sat Aug 1 00:00:00 CEST 2009 i.e. we can move from "ISO 8601 date representations" to "Is interpreted correctly by `date -d'<date>'`" However: $ date -d'1er août 2009' date: date invalide `1er août 2009' Best Regards, -- Nekral -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
