Simon Wistow wrote: > It was origially 01 ne c'est pas? (ITYM "n'est-ce pas?") Yes, it was. I remember that time. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Bad... Paul Makepeace
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless... Chris Devers
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless... Chris Benson
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless... David Cantrell
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless... Roger Burton West
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Point... Dave Hodgkinson
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Point... David Cantrell
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Point... Matthew Byng-Maddick
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Point... Chris Benson
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-W... David H. Adler
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module... Philip Newton
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module... Philip Newton
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module... Philip Newton
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written M... David Cantrell
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Writt... steve
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-W... Greg McCarroll
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-W... Marty Pauley
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written M... Chris Benson
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module... Philip Newton
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module... Philip Newton
- Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module... Philip Newton