There's also RFC 3339[1] which is, IMO, a bit better. The RFC is readily readable, unlike an ISO standard, and the RFC is — mostly — more restrictive.
ISO is fun up until you have to parse "2022-089". Yes, that's a valid ISO date. And it's in March. (And yes, I've seen that used in the wild, though I don't know why anyone would ever choose that format.)
Comments
There's also RFC 3339[1] which is, IMO, a bit better. The RFC is readily readable, unlike an ISO standard, and the RFC is — mostly — more restrictive.
ISO is fun up until you have to parse "2022-089". Yes, that's a valid ISO date. And it's in March. (And yes, I've seen that used in the wild, though I don't know why anyone would ever choose that format.)
[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3339