On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, 15:05, Gary Johnson wrote:
2002-01-02
If we know this is ISO, then obviously it's January 2, 2002. But if
we're not _sure_ it's ISO, then it could be February 1, 2002.
Nah. Not even someone who had never even _heard_ of ISO would ever
write -DD-MM. For
* John Buttery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-13 06:01 -0600]:
Oh, I definitely agree that the ISO format is the way to go. Although
I would change it a bit since technically the hyphens (-) are
unnecessary due to the fields being fixed-length, but that's a bigger
nitpick than even I am
* Martin Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-14 20:26:29 +0100]:
* Nicolas Rachinsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-14 20.02 +0100]:
* Phil Gregory [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-14 12:43:53 +]:
I tried:
attribution=* %f [%{%Y-%m-%e %k:%M:%S %z}]:
Why not set the date-part in $date_format,
* Nicolas Rachinsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-14 20:38:15 +0100]:
* Martin Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-14 20:26:29 +0100]:
* Nicolas Rachinsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-14 20.02 +0100]:
* Phil Gregory [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-14 12:43:53 +]:
I tried:
attribution=* %f
* Nicolas Rachinsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-14 20.44 +0100]:
[...SNIP...]
Now it works, I have to use %Z instead of %z.
attribution=* %f [%{%Y-%m-%e %k:%M:%S %Z}]:
Stupid me, of course I want
attribution=* %f [%{%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S %Z}]:
Nicolas (who should go to bed now, and get rid
Le 13/03/02 à 05:20, John Buttery écrivit:
Even the ISO format is somewhat lacking in this regard, since although
it is ambiguous in a vacuum, the fact is that people may not _know_ you
are using that format and so there is still ambiguity, although not a
failing of the format itself.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 12:34:10PM +0100, Gerhard Häring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 13/03/02 à 05:20, John Buttery écrivit:
Even the ISO format is somewhat lacking in this regard, since although
it is ambiguous in a vacuum, the fact is that people may not _know_ you
are using that format
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 06:01:28AM -0600, John Buttery wrote:
That being said, in practice it is probably a good bet 9 times out of
10 that if you see a date like -xx-xx it is probaby -MM-DD...
Interesting... In what situation would -XX-XX ever be confused with
-DD-MM
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:35:29AM -0500, N. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 06:01:28AM -0600, John Buttery wrote:
That being said, in practice it is probably a good bet 9 times out of
10 that if you see a date like -xx-xx it is probaby -MM-DD...
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:58:57AM -0600, John Buttery wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:35:29AM -0500, N. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 06:01:28AM -0600, John Buttery wrote:
That being said, in practice it is probably a good bet 9 times out of
10 that if you
10 matches
Mail list logo
