Private User; Mike Stangel
The date localization is now/still problematic
There are now
http://www.geni.com/account_settings/localization
3 choices of input:
MM DD YYYY
DD MM YYYY
YYYY MM DD
and sentence:
Dates will be displayed according to your selected language.
BUT it works only partly.
If chosen language is Estonian
(Where standardized date format: DD.MM.YYYY (EVS-8:2008) or "ISO" YYYY-MM-DD (preferably all with leading zeroes)) then
the first choice will give in Edit Profile Basics:
3/17/2011
the second one will be 17/3/2011 and
the third is not working at all!
(will display as the first: 3/17/2011)
P.S. DD instead of dd or D shall mean leading zeroes!
(similar way for MM instead of mm or M)
The slashes are used and shall be used only in MM/DD/YYYY case
"US English Date Format"
In DD MM we prefer . or -
In ISO format - is the required separator.
REF:
http://dotat.at/tmp/ISO_8601-2004_E.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601
Leading zeros are required in ISO 8601, the date format is always and exactly YYYY-MM-DD, nothing else. Why not just stick to this simple and clear standard? From the wiki:
• Date and time values are organized from the most to the least significant: year, month (or week), day, hour, minute, second, and fraction of second. The lexicographical order of the representation thus corresponds to chronological order, except for date representations involving negative years. This allows dates to be naturally sorted by, for example, file systems.
• Each date and time value has a fixed number of digits that must be padded with leading zeros.
• For reduced accuracy, any number of values may be dropped from any of the date and time representations, but in the order from the least to the most significant. For example, "2004-05" is a valid ISO 8601 date, which indicates May (the fifth month) 2004. This format will never represent the 5th day of an unspecified month in 2004, nor will it represent a time-span extending from 2004 into 2005.
I'm all for options and respect the stubbornness involved ;) Perhaps I just reacted rather hastily since I got the initial impression that this way—the good ISO way—of doing it was not represented as a working alternative at all. If it is, then I've got no objections whatsoever and simply happy to see these areas focused.