NavList:

   

Reply

I have never gotten comfortable with the date notation used in the
Silicon Sea problems. Unless the day is greater than 12, my train of
thought invariably stops while I decode the date. The convention is
stated in a footnote, but even "teacher" gets mixed up. For example,
in the latest leg we're told

> We have arrived at Hanalei Bay, Kauai(22d 15.0'N  159d 31.0'N). On
> 08/30/2002 we are preparing to depart for San Pedro, California.

That's not the official Silicon Sea notation, but the meaning is
obvious. But later,

> We depart our anchorage at Hanalei Bay(22d 15.0'N  159d 31.0'W) on
>05/09/2002 @ 22:36:40UT.

Thanks to the earlier example, I began working this for May 9, then
remembered we had anchored in late August.

I suggest something like 5 Sep 2002 or Sept. 5, 2002 or 2002 September
5. Any of these would eliminate the possibility for confusion. The
last one is the astronomer's style and that's what the Almanac uses.
It's the most logical in my opinion.

If we're going to use a numeric notation, the ISO 8601 standard would
be a good idea, e.g. 2002-09-05.

Standards for representing date and time are discussed here:
http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/datefmts.htm

   

Reply