Olaf Titz wrote:
There is no world-wide standard. The new proposed European Union
standard is -mm-dd (year-month-day, as in 2002-03-22), but of
That actually is already a world-wide standard. For a nice writeup of
(a) the standard and (b) _why_ it is that way, see
Glenn Miller wrote:
And is that the date format in the Email client and in the NG reader?
The Date format of sent Emails is described in a Standard (RFC 821?
822?), and looks like this:
Date: 24 Mar 2002 01:44:38 GMT
The displayed date format is the one of the current locale, afaik.
--
On 3/22/2002 11:35 PM, Glenn Miller apparently wrote exactly the following:
On 23 Mar 2002, Sören Kuklau was seen to have posted this wee note into
netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have responded as follows:
There is no world-wide standard. The new proposed European Union
standard
On 03/22/2002 1:48 AM, Glenn Miller wrote:
On 22 Mar 2002, Jay Garcia was seen to have posted this wee note into
netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have responded as follows:
The build date is 03-14-2002 but that doesn't mean that it's using the
0.9.9 Gecko engine.
I didn't
There is no world-wide standard. The new proposed European Union
standard is -mm-dd (year-month-day, as in 2002-03-22), but of
That actually is already a world-wide standard. For a nice writeup of
(a) the standard and (b) _why_ it is that way, see
Glenn Miller wrote:
On 22 Mar 2002, Garth Almgren was seen to have posted this wee note into
netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have responded as follows:
I see your point and like the idea of least to greatest, but many people
have been trained too well. Whenever I see something
Glenn Miller wrote:
On 23 Mar 2002, Martin Fritsche was seen to have posted this wee note into
netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have responded as follows:
Because that's some weird ass non-standard date format.
This side of the pond uses mmdd.
;-)
What's more weird?
small
Jay Garcia wrote:
[Gecko/ Tag in user-agent]
No, it is not the Gecko build date. It's the source pull date.
s/It's/It should be/
--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Glenn Miller wrote:
On 22 Mar 2002, Jay Garcia was seen to have posted this wee note into
netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have responded as follows:
The build date is 03-14-2002 but that doesn't mean that it's using the
0.9.9 Gecko engine.
I didn't know that there was a
Garth Wallace escribió
Standard date of day/month/year? Huh?
Are you British?
i have understood that in southamerica read and write the date in the same
order.
Garth Wallace wrote:
Glenn Miller wrote:
On 22 Mar 2002, Jay Garcia was seen to have posted this wee note into
netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have responded as follows:
The build date is 03-14-2002 but that doesn't mean that it's using the
0.9.9 Gecko engine.
I didn't
Ian Davey wrote:
Garth Wallace wrote:
Glenn Miller wrote:
On 22 Mar 2002, Jay Garcia was seen to have posted this wee note into
netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have responded as follows:
The build date is 03-14-2002 but that doesn't mean that it's using the
0.9.9 Gecko
Garth Almgren a dit :
Ian Davey wrote:
Garth Wallace wrote:
Glenn Miller wrote:
On 22 Mar 2002, Jay Garcia was seen to have posted this wee note
into netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have responded as
follows:
The build date is 03-14-2002 but that doesn't mean that it's
Ian Davey wrote:
Least significant to most significant, or most significant to least
significant does seem to be pretty much a standard. I've never really
understood the logic behind the US format.
At least it is consistent with the way you write the date in American
English.
e.g. March
Pascal Chevrel wrote:
Well, many *American* people ;-)
I do not know any other people using this strange date format :-))
Pascal
Don't forget -- we Americans also insist that the metric system is too
confusing (that whole moving-the-decimal thing, I guess), and only
recently
And it came to pass that Glenn Miller wrote:
On 22 Mar 2002, Jay Garcia was seen to have posted this wee
note into netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have
responded as follows:
The build date is 03-14-2002 but that doesn't mean that
it's using the 0.9.9 Gecko engine.
I didn't
Garth Almgren wrote:
I see your point and like the idea of least to greatest, but many people
have been trained too well. Whenever I see something like 070101 I
immediately think July 1st, 2001.
That reminds me on a show of Jay Leno. He was asking people on the
street about conversion
Christopher Jahn wrote:
Because that's some weird ass non-standard date format.
This side of the pond uses mmdd.
;-)
What's more weird?
small unit - medium unit - large unit or
medium unit - small unit - large unit?
:-Þ
--
Everyone who sends advertisement to me agrees to pay a fee of
On 3/22/2002 8:48 AM, Glenn Miller apparently wrote exactly the following:
On 22 Mar 2002, Jay Garcia was seen to have posted this wee note into
netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have responded as follows:
The build date is 03-14-2002 but that doesn't mean that it's using the
There is no world-wide standard.
That's not quite true - 2002-03-14 is ISO date format (one of the ISO
standards.)
Gerv
And it came to pass that Martin Fritsche wrote:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
Because that's some weird ass non-standard date format.
This side of the pond uses mmdd.
;-)
What's more weird?
small unit - medium unit - large unit or
medium unit - small unit - large unit?
:-Þ
When we
Christopher Jahn wrote:
A fur trapper may walk into a saloon after months in the woods,
and ask the date.
It's September, stranger. The 23rd, to be exact he might be
told. A Saturday.
LOL
--
Everyone who sends advertisement to me agrees to pay a fee of 10 Euro.
On 3/22/2002 2:11 PM, Gervase Markham apparently wrote exactly the
following:
There is no world-wide standard.
That's not quite true - 2002-03-14 is ISO date format (one of the ISO
standards.)
Hmm... I seem to recall that I read a recommendation for that format in
a DIN (Deutsche
On 3/22/2002 4:26 PM, Martin Fritsche apparently wrote exactly the
following:
Sören Kuklau wrote:
Hmm... I seem to recall that I read a recommendation for that format
in a DIN (Deutsche Industrie-Norm / German industry standard)
Arg! DIN means Deutsches Institut für Normung / German
Sören Kuklau wrote:
See http://www.raumausstattung.de/999/533.html . Both applies. And no
need to get angry.
Go to http://www.din.de/
They know how they are called :-)
--
Everyone who sends advertisement to me agrees to pay a fee of 10 Euro.
On 3/22/2002 5:12 PM, Martin Fritsche apparently wrote exactly the
following:
Sören Kuklau wrote:
See http://www.raumausstattung.de/999/533.html . Both applies. And no
need to get angry.
Go to http://www.din.de/
They know how they are called :-)
Yes, I went there, and it is pretty clear
Glenn Miller wrote:
Why not use the standard date of day/month/year - instead of some cockeyed
arrangement with the day after the month but before the year.
Actually, the ISO standard (I'm told is)
YEAR-MONTH-DAY
which is actually the Japneese way of doing things. It's also the usual
way
And it came to pass that Glenn Miller wrote:
On 23 Mar 2002, Christopher Jahn was seen to have posted
this wee note into netscape.public.mozilla.general, to
which I have responded as follows:
When we were a frontier society, folks coming in fromt he
wilderness would lose track of time:
And it came to pass that Glenn Miller wrote:
On 22 Mar 2002, RV was seen to have posted this wee note
into netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have
responded as follows:
At least it is consistent with the way you write the date
in American English.
e.g. March 14, 2002
And it came to pass that dman84 wrote:
Kryptolus C.L. wrote:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
Mostly security patches, but 6.2.2 is using the 0.9.9
gecko engine!! For pehaps the first time Netscape 6.xx
is almost at a par with Mozilla!
You sure it uses 0.9.9?
The page says For more
On 03/21/2002 9:33 PM, Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that dman84 wrote:
Kryptolus C.L. wrote:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
Mostly security patches, but 6.2.2 is using the 0.9.9
gecko engine!! For pehaps the first time Netscape 6.xx
is almost at a par with Mozilla!
You
Jay Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 21 Mar 2002:
The build date is 03-14-2002 but that doesn't mean that it's using
the 0.9.9 Gecko engine. It still uses 0.9.4+ just as 6.2.1 did I
believe.
I think this is the problem everyone has with the
32 matches
Mail list logo
