Talk:Sequential time

Comments
Please don't delete this - I came here looking for more information after reading the BBC article on this. ---unsigned commment by 165.254.38.126
 * Ironic, then, that this article's only reference is the BBC article you came from. There's less information here. Sigh... Melchoir 23:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article has potential. Ķĩřβȳ  Ťįɱé  Ø  03:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

“Palindromic times can also be observed, eg 00:02:10 on 11/01/2000 was the first fully palindrome time sequence of the twenty first century.” — I’m not quite sure what to do with this one. Not only is it completely wrong (2000 belongs to the 20th century), but it also doesn’t take into account the different date formats (and judging from the slashes, it seems to be meant as MM/DD/YYYY). 2001-01-11 10:10:02 is the earliest in the ISO-encouraged YYYY-MM-DD format, while in the American format 10:02:10 11/01/2001 would be proper, but that’s all the way in November. In the European DD-MM-YYYY order the same palindrome is the first possible as well, and that one comes out as the earliest, by some eight minutes before the YYYY-MM-DD observation. -- Ralesk (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Rational" time format
I have been using a simplified (improved: [CC]YYMMDD.HHMMSS..., with mtwrfau (from a local school system convention) optionally replacing the '.' to represent the week day, without interfering with alpna-num sorts) version of the ISO-encouraged YYYY-MM-DD format, since the early '70s when I was introduced to it by the US military. I have found it to be a persistent benefit for decades of use. It already had the huge advantages to me and (presumably) the military, of being brief, unambiguous, & easily sort-able by rudimentary, non-proprietary programs, as well as the existing (poorly thought out?) date-time sort function tools of most operating systems. (Ms Windows was capable of presenting either when set carefully.) It also has an aesthetic & logical consistency with all other western numbering systems (largest to smallest) which none of the historical (archaic ;) date formats have. Although the varied duplex radix format (100, 100, 12, ~30, 24, 60, 60, 100, ...) is subtle in some computation implications, it is still fairly intuitive & rugged. I recognize the issues in my use of "intuitive", as well as its inconsistency with some of the fun format puns that take advantage of some of the idiosyncratic historical formats.
 * Ref: ISO 8601 Data elements and interchange formats – Information interchange – Representation of dates and times
 * Ref: ISO/IEC 18014 Information technology – Security techniques – Time-stamping services

Wikidity (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sequential time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4965234.stm with https://web.archive.org/web/20060519130716/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4965234.stm on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4965234.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)