Re: support for using yyyy-mm-dd (2008-01-31) date format in Wiki and elsewhere

2008-02-05 Thread Richard Bennett
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:27:31 +0100, Jeremiah Flerchinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I myself am used to using dates like 04 Feb 2008. How about just inverting this order so it matches what you want, but the abbreviation of the month is used? Then nobody would get confused on what is the d

Re: support for using yyyy-mm-dd (2008-01-31) date format in Wiki and elsewhere

2008-02-04 Thread Jeremiah Flerchinger
I myself am used to using dates like 04 Feb 2008. How about just inverting this order so it matches what you want, but the abbreviation of the month is used? Then nobody would get confused on what is the day & what is the month. Joachim Steiger wrote: Ian Darwin wrote: No, they cannot.

Re: support for using yyyy-mm-dd (2008-01-31) date format in Wiki and elsewhere

2008-02-04 Thread Joachim Steiger
Ian Darwin wrote: > No, they cannot. That is always, always year-month-day. It is an ISO > standard, is used in many countries (see the Wikipedia link in the OP), > and has been standard that way (maybe not de jure, but widely used) for > at least thirty years. The other is very commonly used both

Re: support for using yyyy-mm-dd (2008-01-31) date format in Wiki and elsewhere

2008-02-04 Thread Ian Darwin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about instead of worrying about the way it's encoded we just write it January 1, 2008. I think that's pretty much standard. People can get confused about 2008-07-06 as much as they can 06-07-2008. No, they cannot. That is always, always year-month-day. It is an

Re: support for using yyyy-mm-dd (2008-01-31) date format in Wiki and elsewhere

2008-02-04 Thread richard5
No excuse other than they're not use to the way it's formatted. People in the US can get confused about 2008-06-07 because we don't use that here. Writing out January 1, 2008 is just basic plain lanuage that no one in the world can possibly get confused about. P.S. This is, hands down, the dum

Re: support for using yyyy-mm-dd (2008-01-31) date format in Wiki and elsewhere

2008-02-04 Thread Joe Pfeiffer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >How about insted of worrying about the way it's encoded we just write >it January >1, 2008. I think that's pretty much standard. In the US, it's standard. Pretty much any other place in the world, it's non-standard. The ISO representation is standard (by definition),

Re: support for using yyyy-mm-dd (2008-01-31) date format in Wiki and elsewhere

2008-02-04 Thread richard5
How about insted of worrying about the way it's encoded we just write it January 1, 2008. I think that's pretty much standard. People can get confused about 2008-07-06 as much as they can 06-07-2008. Quoting "Ron K. Jeffries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I agree with Christ van Willegen re: standard

support for using yyyy-mm-dd (2008-01-31) date format in Wiki and elsewhere

2008-02-04 Thread Ron K. Jeffries
I agree with Christ van Willegen re: standardising dates on the wiki to ISO 8601 coding, or -mm-dd. -- Ron K. Jeffries http://blog.eronj.com ___ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo