|
|
#93972 - 03/24/08 11:56 AM
time-sixteen hundred hours
|
Jans418
New Member
Registered: 03/24/08
Posts: 2
|
Hi,
What is the correct way to do this? I can't get my elecronic book of style to open this morning for some reason.
16:00 hours? 1600?
Thanks so much
Jan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#93979 - 03/24/08 01:21 PM
Re: time-sixteen hundred hours
[Re: Jans418]
|
Endiqua
Member
Registered: 04/28/05
Posts: 3399
Loc: At the computer - where else?
|
Military time is transcribed without colons, so 1600 would be correct.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#94005 - 03/25/08 12:34 AM
Re: time-sixteen hundred hours
[Re: Jans418]
|
meri
Member
Registered: 09/08/01
Posts: 8786
Loc: Murrieta, California
|
Military Time
The above site might come in handy for you.
Meri
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#94011 - 03/25/08 07:24 AM
Re: time-sixteen hundred hours
[Re: meri]
|
14tonks
Member
Registered: 10/25/01
Posts: 5931
Loc: Only 3rd world country in US
|
You might also take note that Meri's link mentions that the scientific convention, versus the military convention, for expressing 24-hour time is to use the colons. I'm not sure why the BOS decided to go with the military version. Perhaps someone only used military time for a VA account that wanted the military style?
Personally, my preference is for 24-hour time written according to astronomical, not military, convention--with colons between hours and minutes as well as minutes and seconds. It makes it much clearer that it's time that is being referred to rather than some other random number. I also think it makes it easier to read, an opinion that is borne out by the fact even the military sticks in a colon when seconds are added, since it is too slow and difficult for the eyeballs to parse 6 digits correctly without it. It just makes sense to me that medical documentation should follow scientific and engineering convention on this, not military convention. (As an aside, the Navy atomic clock website actually uses the astronomical UTC convention of using colons even though the Navy is a military organization. Chicago says colon only before the seconds, but AP asks for colons throughout. European convention is to use the colon or period, depending on which is used for time in that language. Like everything else concerning style, there's plenty of room for differing opinion on this one.)
ETA: Here's a link to a concise summary of ISO Standard 8601 which attempts to set a date and time format that will be exact and correctly understood anywhere in the world. You've met ISO 8601--it's the de facto standard for computers. With transcription being done across time zones and languages these days, perhaps the BOS will give some thought to recommending conformity with ISO 8601 when it puts out its next version. Note particularly the recommendation for using hours + or - from UTC/GMT with local times rather than abbreviations such as CT, EST, etc. which may be subject to misunderstanding. I might note that the recommended date format of yyyy-mm-dd results in an automatic chronological sort of files named using it.
Edited by 14tonks (03/25/08 08:11 AM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: ebadrake
|
