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

2001-04-02 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
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 RR

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

2001-04-02 Thread Philip Newton
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. Note what

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

2001-04-02 Thread Robin Szemeti
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, if it

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

2001-04-01 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
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, that

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

2001-04-01 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
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: [EMAIL

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

2001-04-01 Thread Robin Szemeti
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. if its

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

2001-03-31 Thread Robin Szemeti
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 query, use

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

2001-03-30 Thread Philip Newton
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. err

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

2001-03-30 Thread Redvers Davies
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.

2001-03-30 Thread Steve Keay
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 resolution

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

2001-03-30 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
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.

2001-03-30 Thread Marty Pauley
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 in

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

2001-03-30 Thread Paul Makepeace
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.

2001-03-29 Thread Philip Newton
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.

2001-03-29 Thread David Cantrell
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 wasteful?

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

2001-03-29 Thread Philip Newton
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.

2001-03-29 Thread Chris Benson
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 domains in

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

2001-03-29 Thread Chris Benson
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 8

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

2001-03-29 Thread Robin Szemeti
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.

2001-03-29 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
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 the

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

2001-03-29 Thread Greg McCarroll
* [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 my

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

2001-03-28 Thread Philip Newton
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 you

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

2001-03-28 Thread Philip Newton
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.

2001-03-28 Thread Philip Newton
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.

2001-03-28 Thread Paul Mison
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 then finally to

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

2001-03-28 Thread Paul Makepeace
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.

2001-03-28 Thread Chris Benson
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

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

2001-03-28 Thread Chris Benson
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 it was

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

2001-03-28 Thread Paul Makepeace
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

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

2001-03-28 Thread Chris Devers
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.

2001-03-28 Thread Chris Benson
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 noting

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

2001-03-28 Thread David H. Adler
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

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

2001-03-28 Thread Roger Burton West
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.

2001-03-27 Thread Philip Newton
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 scant,

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

2001-03-27 Thread Chris Devers
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 1,

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

2001-03-27 Thread Paul Makepeace
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.

2001-03-27 Thread Chris Devers
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

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

2001-03-26 Thread pmh
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] "Put down

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

2001-03-26 Thread Matthew Byng-Maddick
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.

2001-03-26 Thread Paul Makepeace
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.

2001-03-24 Thread Jon Eyre
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 entering

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

2001-03-23 Thread pmh
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 Well,

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

2001-03-23 Thread Robin Szemeti
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 its

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

2001-03-23 Thread Niklas Nordebo
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

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

2001-03-23 Thread Lucy McWilliam
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.

2001-03-23 Thread Leon Brocard
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/

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

2001-03-23 Thread Lucy McWilliam
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.

2001-03-23 Thread Robin Szemeti
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 Windows disks

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

2001-03-23 Thread AEF
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.

2001-03-22 Thread Piers Cawley
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 Rekjavik

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

2001-03-22 Thread Philip Newton
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

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

2001-03-21 Thread Simon Wilcox
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 make money to fund the standards work but it seems a tad steep for the casual

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

2001-03-21 Thread AEF
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Simon Wilcox wrote: I thought I'd look this up, but the BSI want 50 quid for a copy. I appreciate this is how they make money to fund the standards work but it seems a tad steep for the casual viewer such as myself. Anyone know of a free online resource ? Useful

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

2001-03-21 Thread Dave Cross
At Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:37:32 + (GMT), AEF [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Simon Wilcox wrote: I thought I'd look this up, but the BSI want 50 quid for a copy. I appreciate this is how they make money to fund the standards work but it seems a tad steep for the

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

2001-03-21 Thread Simon Wilcox
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 the

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

2001-03-21 Thread Jonathan Peterson
This site seems to confirm it tho: http://www.saqqara.demon.co.uk/datefmt.htm 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 like

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

2001-03-21 Thread Piers Cawley
"Jonathan Peterson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This site seems to confirm it tho: http://www.saqqara.demon.co.uk/datefmt.htm 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

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

2001-03-21 Thread David Cantrell
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 make

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

2001-03-21 Thread Robin Szemeti
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 works for the UK,

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

2001-03-21 Thread Merijn Broeren
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.

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

2001-03-21 Thread Robin Szemeti
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.

2001-03-21 Thread Redvers Davies
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.

2001-03-21 Thread Mark Fowler
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.

2001-03-21 Thread Andrew Bowman
[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 to