On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 10:16:53PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:00:38PM +0100, Michael Graham wrote: > > Denis Barbier wrote: > > > According to > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=140891&msg=47 > > > upstream glibc maintainers seem to strongly disagree, so I am closing > > > this bugreport. > > > > Yes, but in that bug report en_AU (libc6 version 2.2.5-4) had also no > > AM/PM text. And this has now changed, hence my bug report. I was > > wondering if it could be change for en_GB. > > I was not referring to the bugreport, but this specific message, in > particular: > Not filling in the am/pm strings is a mean to say that the > people in the country the locale is fow are not to backward > as to use the am/pm format anymore. This definitely is the > case for the UK.
Judging by the writing the author of that text isn't a native speaker of English, so I'm not sure where this information comes from. While the AM/PM format is inferior to the 24-hour format in many ways, it is most certainly false to claim that people in the UK do not use the AM/PM format. AM/PM is still significantly more common than 24-hour in UK everyday speech, signs, written communication, and so on, and I think the onus ought to be on the author of the above to back up his extremely surprising statement with facts. To take an example, Hansard, the official records of parliamentary debates in the House of Commons, records times in the AM/PM format: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040329/debtext/40329-06.htm#40329-06_time0 -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
