Re: Date not being parsed as expected

On 2002-09-06 10:19, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 04:24:23PM +0900, Jean-Christian Imbeault wrote:
>> The following insert:
>> insert into t values('01-10-29')
>> gives the following result in the DB:
>> select * from t
>> d
>> ------------
>> 2029-01-10
>>
>
>Wow. Talk about an ambiguous date! That could be:
>
>1 October 2029 01/10/2029
>January 10 2029 10/01/2029
>2001-10-29 29/10/2001
>
>I don't think ISO dates are allowed to abbreviate any portion, especially
>the year, since that is what makes the date style clear and unambiguous.

I do not have the specification to look at but from some links which
discuss it i get the understanding that:
'01-10-29' (or '011029') should be intepreted as 29 october 1029. (according to ISO8601.)

Some links:
http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/datefmts.htm#8601