Q.:
As a compromise date format, we should use "13/07-15/15-07/2013". Then no one could possibly be confused.
Why not just use JULY or JUL instead of 07. ie 15 July 2013
A.:
YYYY-MM-DD has been agreed upon for a reason:
It allows sorting in alphabetical and date order with the same results.
Serious Question: Why can't people understand the above and stop picking on the way the date is written once and for all?
Serious Answer: it's not about dates at all - it's a displacement battle about Empire.
As you say, the Y-M-D format is not the American norm, rather it is a form preferred by computer folk everywhere for ease of sorting and retrieval. I've used it routinely since the mid-1960s - I am not American. OP perceives it to be an American contrivance though and that is his sticking point.
However, OP's proposal would reinforce American exceptionalism rather than reduce it - it would have the unintended effect of compartmentalizing news from that one country (5% of the populace) into a special case thread separate from news from the rest of the world (95% populace).
As for actual date issues... luckily Y2K is fresh enough that nobody is proposing two-digit year formats yet, and the community is not quite geeky enough to go for internal Unix format (the ubergeeky stardate proposal is a fun touch). I would have expected someone to trot out ISO 8601 in detail by now - the XKCD cartoon upthread hints at it, but stops short of its full bludgeon power.
An anecdote, if I may: in 1969 I had an eccentric boss who decided not to pay IBM's monthly mainframe lease bill on the grounds that the billing date used "American format", namely M-D-Y. Needless to say, IBM was not amused. "The boss" didn't hold his job much longer, but for other reasons. My point is that I've seen "date format wars" before - interestingly that one was also about perceived American exceptionalism but the actual proposed solution (Y-M-D) was the very format that OP objects to now. Same tune, different lyrics.
This isn't about date formats at all.
