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 requires an authoritative name as it's RHS.
 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 hasn't got any
names, and therefore can't serve any zones...

 and .. surely not all the nameservers are necessarily named, only the ones
 published to the world, you could have internal servers that don;t answer
 external queries (such as a primary master server with two slaves used as
 authoratative servers to the world, whilst your primary master is left
 untroubled) in which case the primary master would not need a name just
 an address, and you might want to query it directly yourself to make sure
 it was not telling porkies. ??

*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
amount of work involved in assigning a name for the machine in question
suggests that you get no added benefit by *not* doing so.

MBM

-- 
Matthew Byng-Maddick   Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  +44 20  8980 5714  (Home)
http://colondot.net/   Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942  (Mobile)
Tell me,  O Octopus, I begs,  /  Is those things arms, or is they legs?  /
I marvel at thee, Octopus; / If I were thou, I'd call me us. -- Ogden Nash




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 Robin replied to:

 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.

Having a name is one thing; being able to find out that name with reverse
DNS is another. So if ns.example.com is 192.168.47.11 but there's no PTR
record for 11.47.168.192.in-addr.arpa, you have a name server with a name
but one that you can't use reverse DNS to look up the name for.

Or what do you mean with "an authoritative name" -- does that mean a name
that reverses to itself?

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.

2001-04-02 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 hasn't got any
 names, and therefore can't serve any zones...

now tell me .. why cant I have a nameserver stuffed full of zone files
sitting in a corner, and want to test that it really beleives it can
serve those zones before I install it somewhere .. it doesn;t *need* a
name for that, its task is to serve up authoratative info innit... its
only nslookup that htinks it needs a name.

  and .. surely not all the nameservers are necessarily named, only the ones
  published to the world, you could have internal servers that don;t answer
  external queries (such as a primary master server with two slaves used as
  authoratative servers to the world, whilst your primary master is left
  untroubled) in which case the primary master would not need a name just
  an address, and you might want to query it directly yourself to make sure
  it was not telling porkies. ??
 
 *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. 

its quite common to run a the real primary master server inside an
internal network (where it may or may not be named) and put the name of
one of the public facing machine(s) in the SOA .. there is no way of
telling whther the public facing machine got its info from a zone
transfer or a zonefile as far as I can tell ...

 The other case
 that you might want this is for a resolver, however again, the small
 amount of work involved in assigning a name for the machine in question
 suggests that you get no added benefit by *not* doing so.

[thinks: .. hmm theres something about 'recursive queries' that keeps
waving at me .. but I cant quite remember what it is ..]

agreed .. there is no benefit to be had by not doing so. in general
everyhting gets named eventually .. but the original question was 'how
can it serve names if it doesnt have a name itself' which is a subtly
different question :)

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!



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 doesn't seem like
 such an unrealistic message :-)

H But what about typos? dot.con?

MBM

-- 
Matthew Byng-Maddick   Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  +44 20  8980 5714  (Home)
http://colondot.net/   Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942  (Mobile)
In the face of entropy  and nothingness,  you kind of have to pretend it's
not there if you want to keep writing good code.-- Karl Lehenbauer




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 PROTECTED]  +44 20  8980 5714  (Home)
http://colondot.net/   Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942  (Mobile)
In the face of entropy  and nothingness,  you kind of have to pretend it's
not there if you want to keep writing good code.-- Karl Lehenbauer




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 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.

and .. surely not all the nameservers are necessarily named, only the ones
published to the world, you could have internal servers that don;t answer
external queries (such as a primary master server with two slaves used as
authoratative servers to the world, whilst your primary master is left
untroubled) in which case the primary master would not need a name just
an address, and you might want to query it directly yourself to make sure
it was not telling porkies. ??

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!



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 dig.  If you only need a quick resolution use host.

laziness dictates that nslookup allows you to set the server and then
execute multiple queries  .. with dig you have ot type the server name in
each time .. small, but annoying extra thing

  The problem (for me anyways) was that what you asked for from nslookup need
  not be what it returned.  You would ask it to query one nameserver and it would
  for no apparent reason ignore your request and use nameservers in your 
  resolve file.
 
 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.

agreed it is a dumb thing, especially if your nameserver doesnt have a
name to lookup 

 nslookup is a throwback to 1970's UNIX bollocks, as is the whole of
 the BIND distribution.  If you have to use anything from BIND, host
 and dig are at least somewhat consistent

but its nice .. I like the old things .. I bough ta tape drive because it
would give me the excuse to use the mt command ;)

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!



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 [1] unlikely to happen because its deprecated as of 
 BIND-tools version 9.1

nslookup deprecated? Rats.

 you are apparently supposed to use dig or host .. my feeling is that
 nslookup is too easy to use and useful so they decided to 
 deprecate it to make it harder for non BIND gurus to be able to
 tell wahts going on ...

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.)

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.

2001-03-30 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 dig.  If you only need a quick resolution use host.

The problem (for me anyways) was that what you asked for from nslookup need
not be what it returned.  You would ask it to query one nameserver and it would
for no apparent reason ignore your request and use nameservers in your 
resolve file.



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 use host.
 
 The problem (for me anyways) was that what you asked for from nslookup need
 not be what it returned.  You would ask it to query one nameserver and it would
 for no apparent reason ignore your request and use nameservers in your 
 resolve file.

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.

nslookup is a throwback to 1970's UNIX bollocks, as is the whole of
the BIND distribution.  If you have to use anything from BIND, host
and dig are at least somewhat consistent



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* reverse DNS.

 nslookup is a throwback to 1970's UNIX bollocks, as is the whole of
 the BIND distribution.  If you have to use anything from BIND, host
 and dig are at least somewhat consistent

host(1)'s error messages are often misleading - it can give the message
"try again" to nxdomain responses, for example...

MBM

-- 
Matthew Byng-Maddick   Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  +44 20  8980 5714  (Home)
http://colondot.net/   Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942  (Mobile)
There are worse things in life than death.  Have you ever spent an evening
with an insurance salesman? -- Woody Allen




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 the one area code. They just divide it
 with codes for each area, so Belfast in 02890 whilst Lisburn is 02892.

Calling from Belfast to Lisburn is charged as a local call, AFAIK.

Before the number change Belfast was 01232 and Ards/Bangor was 01247,
but calling between them was considered local.  Now they are 02890 and
02891, and still local.

 So like London we get hit with a 2nd or 3rd change in the last 10 years
 and get no real benefit from it.

It means that we don't have to dial the STD code when calling within NI,
saving three keystrokes: NI is well known for golf, after all.

-- 
Marty

 PGP signature


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 :-)

Paul



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 part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.



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? 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
 rural areas, you (a) have an area code covering a *huge* area, or (b) waste
 lots of phone numbers? As I see, it's one or the other.

What's wrong with (a)?  It already happens in (eg) the Highlands, and IIRC
Northern Ireland has just one area code now for the entire province.*

And if you have a big enough address space - and twelve digits is very big
indeed - what's wrong with (b)?

* - BTW, does that mean that all calls within NI are now charged at local
rate?  Can belfast.pm enlighten me on this?

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

This is a signature.  There are many like it but this one is mine.

** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important **

 PGP signature


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 randomkanji.com
 
 euch.

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.

Cheers,
Philip

[1] This includes knowing whether you fed it "randomkanji" in EUC-JP, or
ISO-2022-JP, or UTF-8, or KSC-5601, or Yum.
[2] which, incidentally, translates to U+0D0A U+0D5C, or MALAYALAM LETTER
UU UNASSIGNED.
-- 
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.

2001-03-29 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 all these
 weird scripts, but there's bugger all software support for them, and it
 will take *years* to replace all that's out there with new versions.  Look
 at how slowly crypto use is spreading, or how little-used IPv6 is.  IMNSHO,
 the registrars who are hyping their furrin-language domain registrations
 are committing a gross fraud, as registrants are led to believe that their
 new gobbledigook.com will be usable when it ain't.

And according to http://slashdot.org/articles/01/03/28/1755243.shtml

   Xanni writes "Intellectual property claims have blindsided the
Internet Engineering Task Force and could derail the group's efforts
 to develop a common scheme for supporting foreign-language domain
names across the Internet. NWFusion is carrying the story."

Great! get the lawyers involved :-( 

-- 
Chris Benson



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 digits instead of 3.
People in more populous places dial 8 instead of 7 AND DON'T HAVE TO
GET NEW SIGNS, STATIONERY, INFORM ALL CONTACTS EVERY YEAR OR TWO.

 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
 rural areas, you (a) have an area code covering a *huge* area, or (b) waste
 lots of phone numbers? As I see, it's one or the other.

But you end up with the situation we've current got - everything is a 
special case:

* London (after 10? 12? years) back with 1 code (01 - 0[78]1 - 01[78]1
- 020) .

* Variable length area codes means a lookup table containing every code 
because the system doesn't know what's area and what's number ... and 
that table being consulted at every digit.
 
 Having short prefixes with many digits for big places and longer prefixes
 with fewer digits for small places seems to make sense to me. It's how

But it doesn't make for simple/fast/scalable computer programs :-(  

* And when more numbers are needed because of the new business park/housing
estate/... ??   Have you never heard messages like:  "You have called an 
invalid number,  4 digit numbers starting with 5 now have a 62 on the front, 
4 digit number starting with 4 now have 52 on the front,  5 digit numbers 
starting with 2 now have a 7 on the front ...".  Stamford Lincs. has
had several such changes, when I worked there the local printers loved
it: an extra Christmas every other April.

 However, USA and France seem to be doing all right with fixed-length numbers

The US numbering plan worked well for ~50 years, but is now showing signs
of stress: number exhaustion, overlapping area codes, and others.   They are 
looking at alternatives: 4/3/4, 3/4/4, ...  but also appear to be mired 
in UK-like short-termism.

Think ahead, think big: Vint Cerf was thinking big in the late '60s
with 32 bit IP addresses and got it way too small.  He backed 128 bit 
IP addresses in the early '90s.

 And all this has what to do with Buffy?

Keep awake at the back there!

Try dialing "Northumbria Police" on a number pad, it seems a lot 
like the 8uffy code mentioned in another thread :-)  (Using capitalisation
to denote 0/1 bits: oNe BiT eAcH lEtTeR = 010 101 0101 010101 = 01010101,
01010101 = "UU").

-- 
Chris Benson



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 because its deprecated as of BIND-tools version
9.1

you are apparently supposed to use dig or host .. my feeling is that
nslookup is too easy to use and useful so they decided to deprecate it to
make it harder for non BIND gurus to be able to tell wahts going on ...


--  
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!



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
  resolver library.
 err [1] unlikely to happen because its deprecated as of BIND-tools version
 9.1

oh, how crap.

 you are apparently supposed to use dig or host .. my feeling is that
 nslookup is too easy to use and useful so they decided to deprecate it to
 make it harder for non BIND gurus to be able to tell wahts going on ...

It's not easy to use, but it has better error reporting than the default
host(1) command. I think it really is time to switch to using adnshost
more...

MBM

-- 
Matthew Byng-Maddick   Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  +44 20  8980 5714  (Home)
http://colondot.net/   Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942  (Mobile)
The  Universe  shipped by  weight, not by  volume.  Some  expansion of the
contents may have occurred during shipment.




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 family for 4 weeks because of this, eventually my mother
decided to go to the expense of calling my mobile, what can i say?
she's from Ballymena.

Greg (who realises very few people will understand that)

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net



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 have to dial a
0 before that"? Comes out to the same thing. Except for...

 This used to mean anything beyond a 
 certain distance from your local calling area /or anything 
 outside of your area code,

Where you can have 713 555 1212 without a leading 1, and 1 555 3434 with a
leading 1 but without an area code (in big area codes such as maybe 801 =
Utah). Hm, so I guess the 1 is not part of the area code.

 but with 10 digit numbers you'll 
 probably just have to put it in front of about every number 
 dialled, thus giving everyone in the country an 11 digit 
 phone number. 

But maybe this'll change in the future -- with 1 being always/never present.

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 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 dialing codes (071,
081 -- or was it 0171, 0181? Or both, one after the other? I forget).

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 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 020 7xxx and 020 8xxx

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 would have done if Oftel had done things properly; instead they
somehow managed to create between 10 and 20 times more numbers and
still fuck things up.

The US approach (longer local numbers- everywhere is 7 digits now,
prepended by a three digit 'city' code) combined with the fact there
was room to expand the three digit codes (Microserfs buffs will note
that this is because they used to all be \d[01]\d, and now they're
\d\d\d) seems to have worked well, as new numbers in, say, outer New
York just have different area codes.

There must have been *some* way Oftel could have made something similar
work here.

--
:: paul
:: this world's crazy, give me the gun





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 whom
it's customary, and justified, to attribute both malice ** stupidity).

Paul



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 
() - 
format,  back in the early '90s to my knowledge (some of them were
probably suggesting it back in the '60s, they'd been there long enough
:-).

Instead we get a numbering system consisting entirely of patches :-(
-- 
Chris Benson



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 the
 lumbering ineptitude of The World's Most Evil Phone Company (to whom
 it's customary, and justified, to attribute both malice ** stupidity).

The word (again from uk.telecom) was that it was officially Oftel,
but BT told them to do it: "Alternatives were [] technically impossible,
[] would confuse the subscribers [] would confuse the elderly [] would
cost business too much".  Pick any that might just possibly apply.

This may be related to how Oftel was originally staffed: my impression
was that it was just the bit of the Post Office that monitored the
Telephone bits: they got split off into Oftel.
-- 
Chris Benson



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
imprinted into it should just be tossed out the window?

I still don't see what's wrong with the US system. Sure, it's filling
up but then the population is 5x the UK and I'd bet they have more
per capita business (i.e. allocated business lines) than the UK.

Anyway, the whole 'numbers' thing is long over due to be replaced by
those new fangled 'letters'. Works for DNS...

 Instead we get a numbering system consisting entirely of patches :-(

Yes, it's embarrassing. "So, why *is* your country's phone system so
utterly hosed?"

Paul



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 than twice ever), because the 
first thing I do with any such phone number is to set the number for autodial. What's 
my fiance's cell phone number? "May Cell". What's Cingular's number? "Cingular". 
What's my bank's number? "Eastern Bank". Easy. Work in some kind of good pervasive 
naming scheme and the underlying numbers can get arbitrarily complex without bothering 
anyone. 




--
Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]




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 that the human brain has the magic number seven genetically
 imprinted into it should just be tossed out the window?

That's 7+/-2 remember and the 7-2 crowd are screwed anyway :-) so
why not up the ante a bit more!  Anyway who remembers full telephone
numbers?  my GF used to be tyneside(0191), jesmond(281), 1143,
the taxi is tyneside(0191), newcastle-centre(261), .

 I still don't see what's wrong with the US system. Sure, it's filling
 up but then the population is 5x the UK and I'd bet they have more
 per capita business (i.e. allocated business lines) than the UK.

But it *is* filling up now: the aim being, like with IPng,  to not
have to change again:  

neat quote from the Economist about IPv6 
... 4 billion addresses for each of 4 billion people on each of
4 billion planets in each of 4 billion galaxies.  This should be
enough to cope with expected growth in numbers of mobile devices,
Internet-capable household appliances and so on for the next
few millenia.
/neat
 
 Anyway, the whole 'numbers' thing is long over due to be replaced by
 those new fangled 'letters'. Works for DNS...

But DNS maps onto ... numbers, 4-12 digit numbers, soon to be luvverly
8 x 4 hex digits!  
 
And I'd rather dial 999^W112 than mm,mmm,r,rrr,fff,u,m,aa,r,i,a,#,p,mmm,
  or whatever "northumbria police" translates to :-)

Hey, maybe this is another 8uffy encoding system?

  Instead we get a numbering system consisting entirely of patches :-(
 
 Yes, it's embarrassing. "So, why *is* your country's phone system so
 utterly hosed?"

I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question since you've asked it in polite
company :-)   

But you have to wonder: BT, RailTrack  the ToCs, Water Co.s, ...
The Dome, ... I've actually started sending DepressoGrams(tm) to 
homesick friends in New Zealand to make them feel better!
-- 
Chris Benson



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 fact, that the current Manhattan phone directory not only
lists 212 (Manhattan and formerly the rest of the city), but two
cellular phone area codes, 646 and 917.

dha
-- 
David H. Adler - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
You get the idea that if Apple won a 90% market share, bought out
Microsoft, and hired Bill Gates to mop the bathrooms, Business Week
would write: "Apple has all but ignored the possibility of alien
invasion..."- David Pogue



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" phone names...

Roger



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,
 unlabelled, and usually too few, digits culled from a unkempt LDAP
 directory...
 
 C Paul S Makepeace, +1 831 238 0902

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,
leaving off the country code is, in general, not enough. In Germany and
England, you have to add a 0 (e.g. +49-40-76470386 turns into (040)
76470386), but in other places, that might be a 9 -- or something else. If
you're not familiar with the country, you may not know what to add.

Cheers,
Philip

[1] Though, strictly speaking, 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.
-- 
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.

2001-03-27 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, a three digit area code, a three digit 
local code and a four digit extension. The local code  extension are always 
mandatory, so effectively phone numbers are 7 digits long -- the local code is just 
useful to give a rough idea where the number may be base (but then with cell phones 
it's meaningless, so the original purpose, already diluted, is disappearing). 

We're burning through phone numbers very very quickly, to the point that new area 
codes are being added all the time and as a result people's phone numbers are changing 
all the time. To control the hemmoraging, some areas are going to full ten digit phone 
numbers; we'll see how much it helps. 

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 outside of your area code, 
but with 10 digit numbers you'll probably just have to put it in front of about every 
number dialled, thus giving everyone in the country an 11 digit phone number. 




--
Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]




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,
 leaving off the country code is, in general, not enough. In Germany and
 England, you have to add a 0 (e.g. +49-40-76470386 turns into (040)
 76470386), but in other places, that might be a 9 -- or something else. If
 you're not familiar with the country, you may not know what to add.

I'm assuming the user is intelligent enough to read a phone book or ask
at the reception desk and learn how to make a national phone call...

There is, IMO, no need to document the inner machinations of the
local phone system in fully qualified phone numbers of the +X Y
Z format.  Besides, it looks ugly on business cards having +44 /
(0) 117 924 ...  :-)

Paul




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 whether or not the leading 1 is included 
with the rest of the number. 

In fact, if the whole country went 10 digit, the need to use the '1'
would even disappear.

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...

PS That single-\n paragraph formatting is evil, IMO. 

Yeah I know, I don't like it either. Blame Eudora...




--
Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED]




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 those Windows disks Dave  Dave?  DAVE!!"
 -- HAL 9000
 
 and for a bonus half point (cos its easy) .. why was HAL called HAL?
 
 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.

I vaguely recall it standing for something like "Heuristic Algorithmic Logic," but 
that doesn't really set it apart from anything.

-- 
Peter Haworth   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mary had a little key - she kept it in escrow.
And every thing that mary said, the feds were sure to know.
-- Sam Simpson



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)
http://colondot.net/   Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44 7956 613942  (Mobile)
Trifles make perfection, and perfection is no trifle.  -- Michelangelo




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.  :-/

Thank ghod credit card authorising software is so slack.

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,
unlabelled, and usually too few, digits culled from a unkempt LDAP
directory...

C Paul S Makepeace, +1 831 238 0902



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 your PIN number?

into an ATM machine?

j

---
jon eyre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (http://simpson.dyndns.org/~jon/)
the slack which can be described is not the true slack





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, 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



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 easy) .. why was HAL called HAL?

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!



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
crippled with the weight of my evasions, deceit, and downright lies"



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/
yapc::Europehttp://yapc.org/Europe/

... How do you pronounce my name? With reverence ;-)



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 Dave  Dave?  DAVE!!"
 -- HAL 9000
 
 and for a bonus half point (cos its easy) .. why was HAL called HAL?
 
 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.

you have it in one .. I had heard (as others point) out that he denies he
noticed .. I reckon he was scared of IBM suing him for some totally
implausible reason .., I can however believe that Stanley would have
wanted to re shoot bits when he found out as he was several watermelons
short of a dinner jacket that man.

I wonder if Darkstar is available on DVD ? .. hmm now .. who do we know
htat does DVDs?

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!



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
phonebook is ordered by first name because they still use proper
patronyms. 

-- 
Piers




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
Gurusamy is his father's name. If he wanted to be complete, he could add
another couple of ancestors in the male line at the beginning:

 ... Srinivasan Venkatasamy Rangasamy Sinnappa Gurusamy Sarathy Naicker

(from a canned FAQ he sent me in response to a question).

If he had a child, it would be called Sarathy Foo.

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.

2001-03-21 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 Summary: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html
 Standard: ftp://ftp.qsl.net/pub/g1smd/8601v03.pdf 

 Google is Good[tm].

 TOny




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 casual viewer such as myself.
  
  Anyone know of a free online resource ?
 
  Useful Summary: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html
  Standard: ftp://ftp.qsl.net/pub/g1smd/8601v03.pdf 
 
  Google is Good[tm].

Looks like you _can_ get it directly from ISO by going to:

http://www.iso.ch/markete/8601.pdf

Dave...



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 filename infers third.


   Google is Good[tm].

doh !  will now write 100 times - "use all your resources before bothering 
other people"

Looks like you _can_ get it directly from ISO by going to:

http://www.iso.ch/markete/8601.pdf

This seems to be the first version. Quite a lot seems to have changed 
between versions judging by the markup on the qsl.net version above.

I agree wholeheartedly with the observation on the IDFC page Dave posted - 
"Seems pretty daft to me - if you want a worldwide standard to be adopted 
it should be freely available to everyone who could possibly want to use 
it" /rant

Simon.




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 to suggest:

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 libraries have used for years, so should everyone
else. Please use:
LASTNAME, [FIRSTNAME|FIRST INITIAL]

2. The address format is a real mess, being least significant string first,
and no clear guide as to whether comma or newline or both are the acceptable
delimiters. Also, the location of the postcode string is arbitrary, and in
any case the postcode repeats information and is often redundant. However,
since postcodes can be easily fed into computer programs, and are language
independant, they should replace all that other stuff.
Please use:
ISO planet code, ISO country code, POSTCODE, Building Number[, apartment
number][, business name]

Note also that country code is compulsory. In the past post offices assumed
that addresses without a country code were local and assumed the 'current'
country as the one required for delivery. This sort of assumption landed us
in the Y2K mess where people foolishly assumed that a year was in the
'current' century, for some silly reason.

Note too that ISO planet code has been introduced so that when we colonise
mars, we will not be left with 3 billion ambiguous addresses! What a mess
that would be! As you see I have really learned from the Y2K thing, which
caused such massive chaos here on earth when all the computers stopped
working and the planes fell out of the sky etc etc.

I hope others will take these suggestions to heart,

Peterson, Jonathan
Earth, UK, W1H 6LT, 40, Ideashub
2001-03-21




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 IMNSHO
 
 However, in the spirit of standardisation, I'd like to suggest:
 
 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 libraries have used for years, so should everyone
 else. Please use:
 LASTNAME, [FIRSTNAME|FIRST INITIAL]
 
 2. The address format is a real mess, being least significant string first,
 and no clear guide as to whether comma or newline or both are the acceptable
 delimiters. Also, the location of the postcode string is arbitrary, and in
 any case the postcode repeats information and is often redundant. However,
 since postcodes can be easily fed into computer programs, and are language
 independant, they should replace all that other stuff.
 Please use:
 ISO planet code, ISO country code, POSTCODE, Building Number[, apartment
 number][, business name]
 
 Note also that country code is compulsory. In the past post offices assumed
 that addresses without a country code were local and assumed the 'current'
 country as the one required for delivery. This sort of assumption landed us
 in the Y2K mess where people foolishly assumed that a year was in the
 'current' century, for some silly reason.

Can I commend ISO 11180 to you?

-- 
Piers




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 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 ?

Not for standards in general, but that particular one is at
  http://www.iso.ch/markete/8601.pdf

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

   The voices said it's a good day to clean my weapons.



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, but in Austria, post codes also require a street
 name, since post codes are too broad to identify individual blocks.
 
 And what if the Martians have completely different systems? What about
 coordinates of things moving through space (i.e. on their way to Mars)?
 
 I suggest introducing the concepts of "unimatrix", "grid" and
 "node". These can be extended into n-dimensional space.

bahhh .. now you've let the genie out of its Klein Bottle.

I suggest introducing the concept of a large blank form field and
allowing the address to be in an appropriate local format ;)

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!



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. 

http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/postal.html

Makes for interesting reading about posting to anywhere. 

Cheers,
-- 
Merijn Broeren| Some days it just don't pay to chew through 
Software Geek | the restraints in the morning... 
  | 



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 even deliver it with the correct address on including post
code .. so they must be martian postmen you are talking about ...

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!



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.

-- 
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
   Name  = 'Mark Fowler',Title = 'Technology Developer'  ,
   Firm  = 'Profero Ltd',Web   = 'http://www.profero.com/'   ,
   Email = '[EMAIL PROTECTED]',   Phone = '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960'  )








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 be like that
 in Europe.

Hence names like Smith, Fletcher, Skinner, Mercer, etc. etc. (inc. Bowman).

On a related note, many Jewish surnames are of a similar, central European
origin (the likes of Goldblum (Goldflower), Spielberg (Playhill), Birnbaum
(Peartree) etc.) is that Jews didn't have/use family names (at that time at
least)and, following a change in the law (those Germans again), had to adopt
family names, hence the preponderance of names like those above).

 In other countries the family name changes each generation, so
 taking "Jonathan Peterson" as an example: his father would be
 "Peter something" and his children would be "something
 Jonathanson".

The same happened in Scotland/Ireland/etc. - Mc/Mac literally means 'Son
of', hence names like MacDonald and Donaldson are essentially the same name.
Irish republicans sometimes reverse the anglicisation of names, hence the
likes of Sean MacStiofain, a senior IRA man, who was originally born in
London as John Stevenson.

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. 

Andrew.