This is good advice. Actually I do avoid using only numbers when I state dates in North America. While I'd favor the dd/mm/yyyy for the reasons I already stated repeatedly here I would not jeopardize its understanding by people by using numbers only. Example, I'd write 24 Jan 2002, instead of 24/01/2002. Nonetheless, as I also stated before, I do use the ISO format on occasion when the circumstances would favor or dictate it.
Marcus On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:32:59 Duncan Bath wrote: >Given the co-existence of the dd/mm/yyyy and mm/dd/yyyy formats, logic >dictates that it is ludicrous to employ either one of them. If the >documenter cannot bring him (her) self to use the standards-based format >(yyyy-mm-dd ), then the month should, obviously, be alphabetized. >Inconvenience and errors arising out of the use of ad hoc date formats must >be the responsibility of the writer. >Duncan >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Elwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: January 23, 2002 09:32 >Subject: [USMA:17570] Re: ISO 8601 date format > > >>At 04:09 PM 1/22/2002 -0800, Bill Potts wrote: >>>Jim Elwell wrote: >>> >>And even if deciphering only the date is important for some reason, isn't >>it better for them to think "I don't know what date this is" than for them >>to misinterpret something like 7-4-2002? >> >>Regardless of what standards may be generated, the chances of a large >>percentage of all written documents using some "international" date format >>that would avoid such confusion is pretty small, at least in our lifetimes. >> >>Jim Elwell >> > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
