Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Mon, 02 Apr 2001, you wrote: > > if its a box-over-in-the corner that one day will be your DNS server > > somewhere but right now its just a ip address on a network you're trying > > to test before deploying .. it did get a name eventually. > > Hmmm.. I don't quite know how you can *test* it,

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

> > *burble*! It is reasonable to have this property, yes, but then what do > you put in the host part of the SOA record for the zones served by this. > The entry there should be the master server for the zone. The other case > that you might want this is for a resolver, however again, the small

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Philip Newton wrote: > Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Robin Szemeti wrote: > > > agreed it is a dumb thing, especially if your nameserver > > > doesnt have a name to lookup > > Erm!!?!? How exactly were you planning to point anything at it? an NS > >

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Robin Szemeti wrote: > > agreed it is a dumb thing, especially if your nameserver > > doesnt have a name to lookup > > Erm!!?!? How exactly were you planning to point anything at it? an NS > RR requires an authoritative name as it's RHS. No

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Robin Szemeti wrote: > On Sun, 01 Apr 2001, you wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Robin Szemeti wrote: > > > agreed it is a dumb thing, especially if your nameserver doesnt have a > > > name to lookup > > Erm!!?!? How exactly were you planning to point anything at it? an NS >

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Sun, 01 Apr 2001, you wrote: > On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Robin Szemeti wrote: > > agreed it is a dumb thing, especially if your nameserver doesnt have a > > name to lookup > > Erm!!?!? How exactly were you planning to point anything at it? an NS > RR requires an authoritative name as it's RHS.

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Robin Szemeti wrote: > agreed it is a dumb thing, especially if your nameserver doesnt have a > name to lookup Erm!!?!? How exactly were you planning to point anything at it? an NS RR requires an authoritative name as it's RHS. MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: <[EMA

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Paul Makepeace wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 01:41:14PM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > > host(1)'s error messages are often misleading - it can give the message > > "try again" to nxdomain responses, for example... > Given how fast .NSI namespace is being eaten up, th

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, you wrote: > > > Yes, it's useful. I like nslookup. (Plus I feel that dig is pretty verbose, > > > but maybe there's a flag to control that that I've been too lazy to look > > > for.) > > > > I guess it depends on application. If you need to know the nuts and bolts > > of a

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 01:41:14PM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > host(1)'s error messages are often misleading - it can give the message > "try again" to nxdomain responses, for example... Given how fast .NSI namespace is being eaten up, that doesn't seem like such an unrealistic message :

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Thu Mar 29 15:37:29 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > * - BTW, does that mean that all calls within NI are now charged at local > > rate? Can belfast.pm enlighten me on this? > > Do you really think we'd get that lucky? No we get hit with the charge for a > national call even though it's all

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Steve Keay wrote: > nslookup does a rather dumb thing: it tries to lookup the reverse DNS > for the nameserver it's about to use. Apart from being a waste of > time, failure to find the name means it will refuse to query that > nameserver. Why doesn't your nameserver *have*

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

> > Yes, it's useful. I like nslookup. (Plus I feel that dig is pretty verbose, > > but maybe there's a flag to control that that I've been too lazy to look > > for.) > > I guess it depends on application. If you need to know the nuts and bolts > of a query, use dig. If you only need a quick re

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

> nslookup deprecated? Rats. Good riddence. > Yes, it's useful. I like nslookup. (Plus I feel that dig is pretty verbose, > but maybe there's a flag to control that that I've been too lazy to look > for.) I guess it depends on application. If you need to know the nuts and bolts of a query, use

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Robin Szemeti wrote: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, you wrote: Hey, check your attributions -- "you" is not very useful when you're sending stuff to a mailing list :) > > or nslookup will have to be smart enough[1] to translate > > "randomkanji" to "bq--buffy" before asking the resolver > > library. >

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Do you really think we'd get that lucky? No we get hit with the charge for a > national call even though it's all in the one area code. They just divide it > with codes for each area, so Belfast in 02890 whilst Lisburn is 02892. > I didn't call

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 03:19:46PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: > > Wouldn't that be rather wasteful? After all, population is distributed > > unevenly. You have some cities with lots of inhabitants, and then you have > > rural areas with a much smaller population density. Does that mean that in >

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Robin Szemeti wrote: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, you wrote: > > Yes. Either you have to translate "randomkanji" to "bq--buffy"[2] in your > > head or with an appropriate tool, or nslookup will have to be smart > > enough[1] to translate "randomkanji" to "bq--buffy" before asking th

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, you wrote: > Yes. Either you have to translate "randomkanji" to "bq--buffy"[2] in your > head or with an appropriate tool, or nslookup will have to be smart > enough[1] to translate "randomkanji" to "bq--buffy" before asking the > resolver library. err [1] unlikely to happen

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:26:46PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: > Chris Benson wrote: > > () - > > Wouldn't that be rather wasteful? After all, population is distributed What are you wasting? Numbers? What is the cost of extra numbers? Some people in small places have to type

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 02:46:48PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:23:12AM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: > > Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > You show me a DNS server which supports kanji :-) > > This is a big bugbear of mine. Yes, you can register d

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Philip Newton wrote: > > Unless you translate them to an acceptable set, which is, I > > believe, where domain i18n is heading. The question is in > > which algorithm to choose for translation. > > Right. Which is evil and horrid. > > nslookup

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:26:46PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: > Chris Benson wrote: > > The people in uk.telecom were suggesting a one-off-this-will-hurt-but- > > it'll-only-happen-once change where the entire country moved to > > () - > > format > > Wouldn't that be rather was

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Philip Newton wrote: > Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > > the host (according to RFC1123) must match > > /^([a-z0-9]+)((.[a-z0-9-]+)*(.[a-z0-9]+))?$/i > > which doesn't really give you support for hostnames in those many > > characters. > Unless you translate them to an acceptabl

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote: > the host (according to RFC1123) must match > > /^([a-z0-9]+)((.[a-z0-9-]+)*(.[a-z0-9]+))?$/i > > which doesn't really give you support for hostnames in those many > characters. Unless you translate them to an acceptable set, which is, I believe, where domain i18n i

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

David Cantrell wrote: > You show me a DNS server which supports kanji :-) Well, if RACE is the encoding that finally gets chosen, all of them do -- it maps all of Unicode to [a-z2-7-]+ or something like that. > This is a big bugbear of mine. Yes, you can register domains > in all these weird s

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote: > You show me a DNS server which supports kanji :-) Although the format for domain names is 8-bit, and they do support 8-bit, the host (according to RFC1123) must match /^([a-z0-9]+)((.[a-z0-9-]+)*(.[a-z0-9]+))?$/i which doesn't really give you support

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Dave Hodgkinson wrote: > Given we can now have kanji URLs, [...] Can we now? I thought there were several different proposed schemes, but none has been officially accepted as standard. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:23:12AM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: > Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:04:05PM -0800, Paul Makepeace wrote: > > > > >Anyway, the whole 'numbers' thing is long over due to be replaced by > > >those new fangled 'letters'. W

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:04:05PM -0800, Paul Makepeace wrote: > > >Anyway, the whole 'numbers' thing is long over due to be replaced by > >those new fangled 'letters'. Works for DNS... > > Oh @deity, let's not do that. Consider the mess the WIPO

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Chris Devers wrote: > Work in some kind of good > pervasive naming scheme and the underlying numbers can get > arbitrarily complex without bothering anyone. Maybe. I'm told that was Tim Berners-Lee's plan for hypertext -- that hyperlinks would be clickable or something like that and that nobod

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Chris Benson wrote: > The people in uk.telecom were suggesting a one-off-this-will-hurt-but- > it'll-only-happen-once change where the entire country moved to > () - > format Wouldn't that be rather wasteful? After all, population is distributed unevenly. You have some cities

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:04:05PM -0800, Paul Makepeace wrote: >Anyway, the whole 'numbers' thing is long over due to be replaced by >those new fangled 'letters'. Works for DNS... Oh @deity, let's not do that. Consider the mess the WIPO's causing now, and then think about competition for "good"

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 03:29:21PM +0100, Paul Mison wrote: > > The US approach (longer local numbers- everywhere is 7 digits now, > prepended by a three digit 'city' code) combined with the fact there s/city/area/; NYC, for instance, has at least two area codes at this point. I notice, in fa

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:04:05PM -0800, Paul Makepeace wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 07:28:31PM +0100, Chris Benson wrote: > > it'll-only-happen-once change where the entire country moved to > > () - > > Twelve and eight digit phone numbers? So phalanxes of psychologists > n

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 12:04:05PM -0800, Paul Makepeace wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 07:28:31PM +0100, Chris Benson wrote: > > it'll-only-happen-once change where the entire country moved to > > () - > > Twelve and eight digit phone numbers? So phalanxes of psychologists >

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 08:16:01PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 07:28:31PM +0100, Chris Benson wrote: > > The people in uk.telecom were suggesting a one-off-this-will-hurt-but- > > it'll-only-happen-once change where the entire country moved to > > () -

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

At 12:04 PM 28.3.2001 -0800, you wrote: >Anyway, the whole 'numbers' thing is long over due to be replaced by >those new fangled 'letters'. Works for DNS... Yeah, exactly. We're already partly there, sort of. I don't know the phone numbers of any of the people I call at all regularly (i.e. more

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 07:28:31PM +0100, Chris Benson wrote: > it'll-only-happen-once change where the entire country moved to > () - Twelve and eight digit phone numbers? So phalanxes of psychologists noting that the human brain has the magic number seven genetically imprint

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 07:28:31PM +0100, Chris Benson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 03:29:21PM +0100, Paul Mison wrote: > > > > There must have been *some* way Oftel could have made something similar > > work here. > > The people in uk.telecom were suggesting a one-off-this-will-hurt-but- >

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 10:04:34AM -0800, Paul Makepeace wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 02:09:50PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: > > the fuckwits at Oftel lumbered us with 01[78]1 in the first place is > > something of a mystery to me... > > Was it Oftel that made that choice or BT? I was assumed

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 03:29:21PM +0100, Paul Mison wrote: > > There must have been *some* way Oftel could have made something similar > work here. The people in uk.telecom were suggesting a one-off-this-will-hurt-but- it'll-only-happen-once change where the entire country moved to (XX

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 06:35:56PM -0500, Chris Devers wrote: > I thought it had a purpose as a sort of control character for the phone companies, >with any number beginning with a 0 or 1 having special meaning. I guess that special >meaning evaporates under 10 digit schemes... I think you're r

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 02:09:50PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: > the fuckwits at Oftel lumbered us with 01[78]1 in the first place is > something of a mystery to me... Was it Oftel that made that choice or BT? I was assumed it was the lumbering ineptitude of The World's Most Evil Phone Company (to

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On 28/03/2001 at 13:23 +0100, Dave Cross wrote: >At Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:09:37 +0100, Simon Wistow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > >[London phone codes] > >> It was origially 01 ne c'est pas? Then it changed to 071 (Inner >> London) and 081 (Greater London) then it changed to 0171 and 0181 and >> the

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Piers Cawley wrote: > Note that, in US phone numbers, the leading 1 is in fact the country > code. I think that in many cases, this may be coincidence -- that US-centric Americans put a long-distance 1 in front of their number, which just happens to be their country code. I'll admit that in som

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

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, Badly-Written Module.

> > That's right. And all of those changes have happened in the last 10 > (12? I'm guessing here) years. > > And each time we've been told that the changes will cope with the > demand for phone numbers for many years. Which has been a lie. > It's fun (well, that's maybe too strong a word) to look

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Chris Devers wrote: > > In any event, the leading 1 is never part of the phone > > number, but you always have to dial it whenever making a > > "long distance" call. > > Well, I would have thought that's just splitting hairs -- is the '0' part of > t

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

At Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:09:37 +0100, Simon Wistow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [London phone codes] > It was origially 01 ne c'est pas? Then it changed to 071 (Inner > London) and 081 (Greater London) then it changed to 0171 and 0181 and > then finally to 020 7xxx and 020 8xxx - what people don't

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Philip Newton wrote: > Oh, all right. Thanks to Neil and Simon for the correction. I suppose this > misapprehension comes partly because it *used* to be two dialing codes (071, > 081 -- or was it 0171, 0181? Or both, one after the other? I forget). It was origially 01 ne c'est pas? Then it chan

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Neil Ford wrote: > I suppose I'd be splitting hairs if I pointed out that the > dialing code for London is 020, meaning numbers should be > shown as 020 . Oh, all right. Thanks to Neil and Simon for the correction. I suppose this misapprehension comes partly because it *used* to be two

RE: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Title: RE: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module. Neil wrote: >I suppose I'd be splitting hairs if I pointed out that the dialing code for >London is 020, meaning numbers should be shown as 020 . > >Of course BT mis-informing people in their own

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Philip Newton wrote: > Well, I would have thought that's just splitting hairs -- is the '0' part of > the number 0207 xxx is the number 207 xxx "but you have to dial a > 0 before that"? Comes out to the same thing. Except for... The '0' part is 020 *NOT* 0207. The seven is part of th

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 01:43:57PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: > Chris Devers wrote: > > In any event, the leading 1 is never part of the phone > > number, but you always have to dial it whenever making a > > "long distance" call. > > Well, I would have thought that's just splitting hairs -- is

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Chris Devers wrote: > In any event, the leading 1 is never part of the phone > number, but you always have to dial it whenever making a > "long distance" call. Well, I would have thought that's just splitting hairs -- is the '0' part of the number 0207 xxx is the number 207 xxx "but y

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 03:30:54PM -0800, Paul Makepeace wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 01:44:49PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: > > Still not enough. It'll work for the Americans (yet again...)[1] but if you > > have a phone number whose country codes identifies it as being in country X, > > and

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

At 03:28 PM 27.3.2001 -0800, you wrote: >With 10 digit dialling, it's 10 digit dialling, no extra '1' required. >E.g. if I was in Houston (which has three area codes and is 10-digit) I >would dial 713 555 1212 regardless of whether I was already in 713. Ahh. This explains why a cell phone works w

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 01:44:49PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote: > Still not enough. It'll work for the Americans (yet again...)[1] but if you > have a phone number whose country codes identifies it as being in country X, > and you are in country X on a business trip and want to call that person, >

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 11:58:17AM -0500, Chris Devers wrote: > In any event, the leading 1 is never part of the phone number, but you always have >to dial it whenever making a "long distance" call. This used to mean anything beyond >a certain distance from your local calling area &/or anything

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

At 01:44 PM 27.3.2001 +0200, you wrote: >I think America requires you to add "1" at the beginning; though it's not >part of the area/STD code as the 0 is in England and Germany, I think >most places require it to show you're dialling a long-distance call. Correct. Standard format is an implicit

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Paul Makepeace wrote: > The world would be a much better place if everyone habitually quoted > their phone number +access_code area_code local_number. You don't > realise how important this is 'til you have to repeatedly find people > in various desolate stations dotted all over the world with sca

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:00:24PM -, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > LASTNAME, [FIRSTNAME|FIRST INITIAL] This really doesn't address (ho ho) unfortunate people whose first name isn't used except when their passport/national ID kit is being bandied about. Nor people lumbered with four names. :-/

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Paul Makepeace wrote: > More trivia: NT stands (the above not withstanding) for New Technology > which makes reading 2k's splash "Built on NT Technology" sound a bit > like recording on DAT tapes. And of course, is a trademark of Northern Telecom. As mentioned on the NT CDs.

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I vaguely recall it standing for something like "Heuristic Algorithmic > Logic," but that doesn't really set it apart from anything. how does that explain SAL9000? MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 20 8980 5714 (Home)

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 19:07:16 +, Dave Cross wrote: > At 17:48 23/03/2001, you wrote: > >On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, you wrote: > > > > > Well, I can make a guess at what the first number represents. Those > > expansion plans really are short-term. > > > > > Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

* AEF ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Leon Brocard wrote: > > > Really? How many flies do you have? > > One on each pair of trousers. Except track-suit bottoms. > At first i thought you mean't zippers at the bottom of tracy suit bottoms, this would of been truly evil! The

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

At 21:39 24/03/2001, Jon Eyre wrote: >On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Tony Bowden wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 03:24:48PM -0800, Paul Makepeace wrote: > > > More trivia: NT stands (the above not withstanding) for New Technology > > > which makes reading 2k's splash "Built on NT Technology" sound a b

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 08:36:42AM +, Piers Cawley wrote: > > I used to work with an Icelandic chap who told me that the Rekjavik > phonebook is ordered by first name because they still use proper > patronyms. The standard example is that you're more likely to remember a casual aquaintance

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Tony Bowden wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 03:24:48PM -0800, Paul Makepeace wrote: > > More trivia: NT stands (the above not withstanding) for New Technology > > which makes reading 2k's splash "Built on NT Technology" sound a bit > > like recording on DAT tapes. > > Or e

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 03:24:48PM -0800, Paul Makepeace wrote: > More trivia: NT stands (the above not withstanding) for New Technology > which makes reading 2k's splash "Built on NT Technology" sound a bit > like recording on DAT tapes. Or entering your PIN number? Tony -- ---

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 07:07:16PM +, Dave Cross wrote: > Well, Arthur C Clarke claims it's a pure coincidence, but if you take the > letters after each of H, A and L - you get IBM. If you take the letters VMS and shift 'em one, you get WNT, a popular Redmond OS one of whose lead architects

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Leon Brocard wrote: > Really? How many flies do you have? One on each pair of trousers. Except track-suit bottoms. Tony

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, you wrote: > At 17:48 23/03/2001, you wrote: > >On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, you wrote: > > > > > Well, I can make a guess at what the first number represents. Those > > expansion plans really are short-term. > > > > > Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > "Put down those Win

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

At 17:48 23/03/2001, you wrote: >On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, you wrote: > > > Well, I can make a guess at what the first number represents. Those > expansion plans really are short-term. > > > Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Put down those Windows disks Dave Dave? DAVE!!" > > --

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Tony wrote: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Lucy McWilliam wrote: > > Love and fruit flies, > I only really want /one/ of those things... Ditto. And I have the wrong one... Love and grapefruit, L.

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

AEF sent the following bits through the ether: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Lucy McWilliam wrote: > > > Love and fruit flies, > > I only really want /one/ of those things... Really? How many flies do you have? Leon -- Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/ yapc::Europe...

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Lucy McWilliam wrote: > Love and fruit flies, I only really want /one/ of those things... Tony

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Robin Szemeti wrote: > and for a bonus half point (cos its easy) .. why was HAL called HAL? I'm not even going to bother answering that ;-) Love and fruit flies, L.

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:48:42PM +, Robin Szemeti wrote: > and for a bonus half point (cos its easy) .. why was HAL called HAL? It's IBM with each letter shifted once to the left. -- Niklas Nordebo -><- [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The day is seven hours and fifteen minutes old, and already it's c

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, you wrote: > Well, I can make a guess at what the first number represents. Those expansion plans >really are short-term. > Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Put down those Windows disks Dave Dave? DAVE!!" > -- HAL 9000 and for a bonus half point (cos i

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:46:07 +, Marty Pauley wrote: > The > interplanitary URL is sufficient for our short-term expansion plans. > Unfortunatly the actual specification of the scheme is a millitary > secret, but I can target your house with the following: > ipbm://3/401392692/759227092/5 We

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:07:52PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: > If he [Sarathy] had a child, it would be called Sarathy Foo. Bit of a weird name for a kid, but I wouldn't put it past him. -- fga is frequently given answers... the best are "Date::Calc", "use a hash", and "yes, it's in CPAN" or

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Redvers Davies wrote: > and if you don't have a last name??? > > I have three friends who are surnameless... their credit > cards have a "." as a surname because the bank computers > couldn't handle a lack of surname. An example from the Perl world: Gurusamy Sarathy. His name is Sarathy, and Gu

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

David H. Adler wrote: > And some of us have middle names/initials that they consider > significant... And then there are those who consider the case of their names (and the punctuation used) significant, and post style guides on their web site. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Andrew Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In Iceland they append 'son' for sons and 'dottir' for daughters - > hence Magnus Magnusson is the son of Magnus, whilst Sally Magnusson > would, in Iceland at least, be Sally Magnusdottir. I used to work with an Icelandic chap who told me that the Rekj

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:10:37PM +, Redvers Davies wrote: > > LASTNAME, [FIRSTNAME|FIRST INITIAL] > > and if you don't have a last name??? > > I have three friends who are surnameless... their credit cards have a "." as > a surname because the bank computers couldn't handle a lack of surna

RE: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

[Continuing off-topic - not a surprise on London.pm, I'm sure (I thought Mr. Cantrell's [ot] the other day denoted 'on-topic' :--)] > From: Marty Pauley [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > In some countries the 'family name' is actually defined by your > job, location, or other mutable property. It used

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On 2001, Mar, 21, Wed Pauley, Marley wrote: > That would work if 'significant' was well defined in relation to names, > but it isn't. It works with dates because 'significant' has a well > defined meaning in relation to numerical quantities. I wonder what Larry thinks about this. Later. Mark.

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

> LASTNAME, [FIRSTNAME|FIRST INITIAL] and if you don't have a last name??? I have three friends who are surnameless... their credit cards have a "." as a surname because the bank computers couldn't handle a lack of surname.

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, you wrote: > Human postmen can do amazing > things, like deliver letters addresses to "John Smith, the house with the > blue door, near the flower shop in the main street in Newtownards". blimey .. he really _IS_ a martian .. must be ... down here on Earth the postmen can't

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed Mar 21 12:00:24 2001, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > 1. Please can we stop this silly 'firstname lastname' format. The most > significant string (family name) should come first, with a standard > delimiter (comma) before the first name (which should come last). This is > what bibliographies and

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Quoting Jonathan Peterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Please use: > ISO planet code, ISO country code, POSTCODE, Building Number[, apartment > number][, business name] > Please move to one of the former USSR countries, they write their addresses there like that. http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/postal

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Marcel Grunauer wrote: > Jonathan Peterson writes: > > >Please use: > >ISO planet code, ISO country code, POSTCODE, Building Number[, apartment > >number][, business name] > > [snippage] > > >Peterson, Jonathan > >Earth, UK, W1H 6LT, 40, Ideashub > >2001-03-21 > > > > That

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

At 12:33 21/03/2001 +, Piers Cawley wrote: >Can I commend ISO 11180 to you? Hah - they think of everything. Just a shame that, as you have to pay for it, chances are most people won't use it. (Can you tell I feel strongly about this ;-) Simon.

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

Jonathan Peterson writes: >Please use: >ISO planet code, ISO country code, POSTCODE, Building Number[, apartment >number][, business name] [snippage] >Peterson, Jonathan >Earth, UK, W1H 6LT, 40, Ideashub >2001-03-21 > That works for the UK, but in Austria, post codes also require a street nam

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 11:23:59AM +, Simon Wilcox wrote: > At 11:43 20/03/2001 -0500, Dave Cross wrote: > > >Which is the ISO standard (number 8601) for dates for a very good > >reason. > > I thought I'd look this up, but the BSI want 50 quid for a copy. > > I appreciate this is how they

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

"Jonathan Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This site seems to confirm it tho: > > > > > > > > Hmmm, 11 reasons to use this format: > > 5 of these reasons are "Because it makes it easier for me to write software > if you do" which don't carry

RE: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

> This site seems to confirm it tho: > > > Hmmm, 11 reasons to use this format: 5 of these reasons are "Because it makes it easier for me to write software if you do" which don't carry much weight IMNSHO However, in the spirit of standardisation, I'd

Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

At 06:42 21/03/2001 -0500, Dave Cross wrote: >At Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:37:32 + (GMT), AEF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > > > > Useful Summary: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html > > Standard: ftp://ftp.qsl.net/pub/g1smd/8601v03.pdf > > This one seems to be a second edition although

  1   2   >