Re: CLDR: 2 vs. 4 digit years in US?

From: Charles Levert (charles.levert@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Dec 06 2005 - 19:46:24 CST

  • Next message: Eric Muller: "Re: CLDR: 2 vs. 4 digit years in US?"

    * On Tuesday 2005-12-06 at 15:12:18 -0800, Deborah Goldsmith wrote:
    > http://dev.icu-project.org/cgi-bin/locale-bugs/discuss?id=920
    >
    > The issue has been raised as to whether to change the number of
    > digits in the year for short date formats from 2 to 4 for the en_US
    > locale. In other words, should short dates, which are currently
    > formatted like 12/06/05, be changed to 12/06/2005?
    >
    > The CLDR technical committee is considering this request, and would
    > like to gather feedback.

    For the USA, see

       Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)
          Publication 4-1
          “REPRESENTATION FOR CALENDAR DATE AND
           ORDINAL DATE FOR INFORMATION INTERCHANGE”
          1988 January 27
          <http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/fip4-1.htm>

          Publication 4-2
          “REPRESENTATION OF CALENDAR DATE FOR INFORMATION INTERCHANGE”
          1998 November 15
          <http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:0Y7Ui6QW0poJ:www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/fip4-2.pdf&hl=en
          <http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/fip4-2.pdf>

       American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
          ANSI INCITS 30-1997 (R2003)
          “Representation of Calendar Date and
           Ordinal Date for Information Interchange”
          <http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/product.asp?sku=ANSI+INCITS+30%2D1997+%28R2003%29>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 06 2005 - 19:50:38 CST