Area Man wrote:Quicksilver wrote:it should just be DD/MM/YYYY. Makes the most sense.
No! Would you seriously write time as ss:mm:hh? or mm:ss:hh? No. The date is just an extension of that. L-R is big to small (more precision further right, like normal numbers).
Although I strongly prefer YYYY-MM-DD, I think DD/MM/YYYY does make a certain amount of sense (at least in some contexts).
Basically, it puts the most useful information up front.
"What is the date?"
"It's the 27th." ("Of what?" "February.")
Often, that's all you need. The year and the month are usually the same as they were yeaterday, and it's mainly the day-of-month we have to keep track of.
With time-of-day, it's the opposite situation. The hour is more often the most useful piece of information, followed by some measure of our progress through that hour (it's a little after four). Seconds go by so quickly that they're often not worth keeping track of.
But for datestamps, back-reference, I think Y-M-D is a good system. For the full timestamp it puts all the fields in consistent order of decreasing magnitude/increasing precision, and when you're looking at a collection of files, for instance, that goes back years, starting with the year makes more sense.
For sorting file names, there are a couple extra wrinkles... Filenames aren't necessarily sorted in a strict lexicographical order. Windows tries to sort numbered files smartly (like "porn_image_8.jpeg" will sort before "port_image_11.jpeg") - that approach could take dates into account as well, though personally I think the whole concept is kind of a mess - if there's fields that should be used for sorting, those should maybe be separate from the concept of a singular "name" for the file... But that's not the world we presently live in, so we make do...