!iso8601@lemmy.sdf.org gang, rise up
Again, – within most use cases – it really isn’t.
In your day to day, will you need to know the year of a thing? Probably not; it’s probably with the year you’re currently in.
Do you need to know the day of the month first? Probably not unless it’s within the current month so you need to know the month first.
Telling me “22nd” on a paper means nothing if I don’t know what month we’re referring to; and, if I do need to know the year, – well – it’s always at the the of the date so it’s easy to locate rather than parsing the middle of the date, any.
In your day to day, will you need to know the year of a thing? Probably not; it’s probably with the year you’re currently in.
that’s why I said you could omit it. did you read what I wrote?
Yeah; I did. And that’s a short stop for that date being useless in the future, after the short-term use case. That’s more wild, to me, than having the least useful part of the date just be at the end where it’s easily locatable.
So you are suggesting that the month should be first because it’s more general, but at the same time the year should be last because it’s the least useful. Can’t you see why that’s really inconsistent? It would be more logical to choose a rule to follow. Either it’s sorted by “usefulness”: DD-MM-YY, or by “generalness”: YY-MM-DD.