Last modified: 2011-07-24 11:41:44 UTC
Since 3. august 2006 has the ISO-date/time-format (lowest option in the list) in all Wiki-
Projects a "T" between date and time. This is also in all lists (Version/Contributions).
After an update in another project with Wikimedia-Software (I think october 2006) , this
bug was there also. The sysadmin there say, it is in the software and to change he must
patch he software. But at the the next update he must change the software again.
The "T" and other letters, described in ISO 8601 are usefull for programs to read the
date, but it is not usefull for humans. The "blank" before was better readable.
Questions in the German Wikipedia: [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/
all users there find the blank better]
(Aktuell) (Vorherige) 2006-11-28T14:26:14 PDD (Diskussion | Beiträge) (→Rauspatchen)
(Aktuell) (Vorherige) 2006-11-28 15:55:51 PDD (Diskussion | Beiträge) (→Rauspatchen)
So would the best fix be to have another option in user preferences that would display the time as "2001-01-15 16:12:34" rather than "2001-01-15T16:12:34"?
Yeah, its OK.
Since the "T" is specified by ISO 8601, it should be kept in this setting. Although ISO 8601 is intended at human readability also, could create an additional setting without the T.
"The date and time representations may appear in proximity to each other, often separated by a space or sometimes by other characters. In these cases they occupy two separate fields in a data system, rather than a single combined representation. __This is usually done for human readability__. Unlike the previous examples, "2007-04-05 14:30" is considered two separate, but acceptable, representations—one for date and the other for time. It is then left to the reader to interpret the two separate representations as meaning a single time point based on the context."
"human readability"? Who had think this? :-) Or can anyone read this?:
Primaly the ISO is for for "Data elements and interchange formats -- Information interchange"
But "create an additional setting" is also OK.
The addition of the T makes it very clear that this is intended to be
the ISO 8601 format. Previously, one might have argued it was a format
unique to wikipedia that just happened to resemble the ISO 8601 format.
This strong association with the ISO 8601 format means that all dates
expressed in this format are in the proleptic Gregorian calendar and
most definitely not the Julian calendar. I suspect no consideration
was given to any unindended consequences of this unavoidable interpretation.
ISO 8601 is hardly focused towards human readability, and since we offer a few different human readable formats in addition to the machine readable format, I don't think that compliance with the standard in this case is a bug.