I guess I don’t expect it to catch on either, but I think I wish it would. It could make the timestamps much more readable.
One suggestion I would like to put out there in case it does catch on is to make a clearer distinction between the “year”-”week”-”date” part and the “hour”-”minute”-”second” part, since that would make it even easier to catch the order of magnitude at a glance. Most datetime formats do this anyway.
Though in order to avoid ambiguity, it should probably still be clearly distinct from usual ways of writing is, as you’ve also done. I’d suggest maybe 16′62′7 68′531 or 16′62′7:68′531.
I guess I don’t expect it to catch on either, but I think I wish it would. It could make the timestamps much more readable.
One suggestion I would like to put out there in case it does catch on is to make a clearer distinction between the “year”-”week”-”date” part and the “hour”-”minute”-”second” part, since that would make it even easier to catch the order of magnitude at a glance. Most datetime formats do this anyway.
Though in order to avoid ambiguity, it should probably still be clearly distinct from usual ways of writing is, as you’ve also done. I’d suggest maybe 16′62′7 68′531 or 16′62′7:68′531.