this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
559 points (87.1% liked)

memes

15599 readers
2766 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Noite_Etion@lemmy.world 305 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (22 children)

Waiting for the ISO 8601 & 9001 gang to show up and promote YYYY-MM-DD.

Edit: That took seconds, a very punctual bunch.

[–] Voyajer@lemmy.world 113 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] Bahnd@lemmy.world 19 points 5 days ago

Whoo! ISO-8601 fan club!

[–] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 48 points 5 days ago (2 children)

YYYYMMDD, scrub out the excess fat!

[–] Artyom@lemm.ee 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If only there were some international standards organization to make a decision for us!

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world 25 points 5 days ago (1 children)
[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I know. I started using the format with periods back in the 90s, before I knew of the standard, and at this point doing it with periods is muscle memory. That's not meant as an excuse, just an explanation. The excuse is laziness.

[–] Ziglin@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Same here but not in the 90s. Since discovering the standard I have switched though.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 44 points 5 days ago

That's ... why I'm here

[–] kata1yst@sh.itjust.works 42 points 5 days ago (2 children)

RFC 3339 if you please. Let's be prescriptive.

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago (2 children)

After all the self-important blowhards in the committe were satisified that they had put their fingerprint on the ISO8601 document with bullshit like "year-month-week" format support and signed off, they went home.

The rest stayed behind, waited a few minutes to be safe, and then quickly made RFC3339 like a proper standard.

This is what RFC3339 vs ISO8601 feels like.

[–] kata1yst@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Let's not forget that technically you have to pay for ISO8601, despite it being nearly useless as a standard because it allows several incompatible formats to coexist.

Fucking wild.

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

While a fucking stupid concept, it's nice that this particular format has a monetary deterrent.

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 points 4 days ago

Only if you want to say you have the certification for it, you can use it if you want, that is fine

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

ISO8601 is YYYY-MM-DD nothing to do with weeks and isn;t the only difference of RFC3339 that you can use a space instead of a T in between the date and time? Also RFC3339 is only an internet standard while ISO is a generally international standard?

[–] FrederikNJS@lemm.ee 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 points 3 days ago

Yeah I know, but it also has a different use case. As far as I know RFC3339 is mostly used for programming while ISO8601 is the standard for international communication and I wish people would use it more. I have processed American invoices in the wrong month because of their date structure. I have no reason to it, but I always write my date ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD)

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

No idea what you based those claims on, but the spec itself (I have the pdf) and Wikipedia's summary disagree. ISO8601 allows for YYY-MM-DD yes but it allows for a bunch of silly stuff.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601

Both "2025-W24-4" and "2025‐163" are valid representations of today's date in ISO8601.

(Also the optional timezone makes it utterly useless.)

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 points 3 days ago

The omitting of timezones doesn't matter to a vast majority of the world, since most countries only have one time zone so I don't see a reason why that is relevant in most use cases.

ISO is a general standard, it's in the name and the RFC is created for the internet, that is also in the name/description of the RF.

Using 2025-164 can be handy, I actually use the day of the year to check what invoices from previous year are open since those are the invoices that are due 164 days or more.

[–] tisktisk@piefed.social 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Anyone help enlighten me about whatever this and unix epoch are getting at? Are these really more specific/better than iso 8601 and why specifically?

[–] kata1yst@sh.itjust.works 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Happily!

So, first epoch time. It's a pretty robust standard, covers many use cases, has few edge cases... but it's specifically for machine usage, since it's not human readable and it's not reversible into the past (pre-1970).

ISO 8601 (depending on the annum), by the text of the documentation, these are all valid dates:

  • 2007-04-05T14:30
  • 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
  • 2007-04-05T14:30Z
  • 200704051430
  • 07-04-05T14:30
  • 2007-95T14:30

Etc.

RFC 3339 (& RFC 9557, it's newest modification) is actually a subset of ISO 8601 and is far more prescriptive. For example you must have a timezone designator. You must have a separator between the date and time. You must use a dash between date elements and a colon between time elements. You can easily add standardized subseconds.

  • 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
  • 2007-04-05 14:30Z

This means that RFC 3339 is much easier to parse and use by both machines and humans.

This page (reddit, I know...) has a great summary, and so in the interest of knowledge and attribution I'll link it: https://www.reddit.com/r/ISO8601/comments/p572xy/rfc_3339_versus_iso_8601/

This website allows you to more directly compare the two interactively. https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/

[–] tisktisk@piefed.social 5 points 5 days ago

This is delicious, and I can't say thank you enough. I like this a lot. If anyone has any insight on more superior standards or subsets of these, please inform me. This made my day tho 😊

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 points 4 days ago

ISO is a wider standard than the RFC standards though which is only for the internet

[–] vinnymac@lemmy.world 32 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I’m now imagining a child who must write 2026-05-10T10:06:09.426792Z on all of their tests.

[–] littleonescared@lemmy.world 24 points 5 days ago (2 children)

They should also add a timezone since most of us don't live at UTC zero timezones -> 2012-12-28T18:12:33+09:00

[–] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 31 points 5 days ago (1 children)

They did; the Z at the end denotes UTC.

[–] littleonescared@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

My point was not everyone is just at UTC zero but sure Z is also a timezone.

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 points 4 days ago

Most people communicate mostly with people in the same timezone's, partially because most countries only have one timezone.

[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

Microsecond precision is fine for most use cases, but I teach my kids to use nanoseconds.

[–] Artyom@lemm.ee 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It's a flexible standard. 2026-05-10T10:06:09.426792Z, 2026-05-10 10:06:09.426792Z, 2026-05-10 10:06:09.426792 , and 2026-05-10 all conform to the standard.

[–] trijste@lemmy.ca 14 points 5 days ago
[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 5 days ago

ISO 8601/RFC-3339 (Unix Epoch also acceptable) gang reporting in.

[–] amlor@lemmy.world 15 points 5 days ago

I’m doing my part!

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Btw this is how it’s used in some countries (eg., Hungary, Japan, China, and a few others from Asia). All other date formats are very strange and confusing for us

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

It's the only way that makes sense

[–] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Hello from Hungary ! We should also democratize the Surname GivenName format

[–] JacksonLamb@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Szia. We should indeed.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Anyone that gives me a document or receipt or invoice with a date formatted DD-MM-YYYY should have a tire iron swung at their thighs

Multiple swings if they can't decide on using DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY or DD-MM-YY or MM-DD-YY or YY-MM-DD or YY-DD-MM

[–] Vinstaal0@feddit.nl 1 points 4 days ago

I rather have somebody write their invoices at DD-MM-YYYY cause there is a bigger chance it will most likely not be an invoice from a North American company which notriously cannot make proper invoices and most software that actually scans and processes invoices is based on the European standaard DD-MM-YYYY or on ISO8601.

[–] double_quack@lemm.ee 5 points 5 days ago

YYYY-MM-... well, ya know the deal...

[–] tisktisk@piefed.social 3 points 5 days ago (2 children)

As a big ISO 8601 guy myself, I request explanation of this 9001 addition? Never heard of it till now and am optimistic

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)