On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:27:31 +0100, Jeremiah Flerchinger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I myself am used to using dates like 04 Feb 2008. How about just
inverting this order so it matches what you want, but the abbreviation
of the month is used? Then nobody would get confused on what is the
How about insted of worrying about the way it's encoded we just write
it January
1, 2008. I think that's pretty much standard. People can get confused about
2008-07-06 as much as they can 06-07-2008.
Quoting Ron K. Jeffries [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree with Christ van Willegen re:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about insted of worrying about the way it's encoded we just write
it January
1, 2008. I think that's pretty much standard.
In the US, it's standard. Pretty much any other place in the world,
it's non-standard.
The ISO representation is standard (by definition),
Ian Darwin wrote:
No, they cannot. That is always, always year-month-day. It is an ISO
standard, is used in many countries (see the Wikipedia link in the OP),
and has been standard that way (maybe not de jure, but widely used) for
at least thirty years. The other is very commonly used both
No excuse other than they're not use to the way it's formatted. People in the
US can get confused about 2008-06-07 because we don't use that here. Writing
out January 1, 2008 is just basic plain lanuage that no one in the world can
possibly get confused about.
P.S. This is, hands down, the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about instead of worrying about the way it's encoded we just write it
January
1, 2008. I think that's pretty much standard. People can get confused
about
2008-07-06 as much as they can 06-07-2008.
No, they cannot. That is always, always year-month-day. It is an
I myself am used to using dates like 04 Feb 2008. How about just
inverting this order so it matches what you want, but the abbreviation
of the month is used? Then nobody would get confused on what is the day
what is the month.
Joachim Steiger wrote:
Ian Darwin wrote:
No, they cannot.
7 matches
Mail list logo
