Bo7a

And to address the argument on precision versus descending. I disagree. An instrument counting seconds is more precise than a machine counting minutes, hours, days, weeks, months etc… And that holds true through the chain. The precision is in the unit.

We can debate this all day. And I can’t honestly say that I would take either side in a purely semantics argument.

But the wording comes directly from RFC3339 which is, to me, the definitive source for useful date representation.

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3339.txt

5.1. Ordering

If date and time components are ordered from least precise to most precise, then a useful property is achieved. Assuming that the time zones of the dates and times are the same (e.g., all in UTC), expressed using the same string (e.g., all “Z” or all “+00:00”), and all times have the same number of fractional second digits, then the date and time strings may be sorted as strings (e.g., using the strcmp() function in C) and a time-ordered sequence will result.

You misunderstand my comment.

I’m saying the digits in a date should be printed in an order dictated by which units give the most precision.

A year is the least precise, a month is the next least, followed by day, hour, minute, second, millisecond.

I don’t know why anyone would ever argue against this. Least precise to most precise. Like every other number we use.

(I don’t know if this is true for EVERY numerical measure, but I’m sure someone will let me know of one that doesn’t)