On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:21:12 +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 05:39:16AM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote: >> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:50:16 +0000, Ken Gilmour wrote: >> > On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:57:42 +0100, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: >> >> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 the mental interface of >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] told: >> >>> I will be out of the office starting 12/26/2003 and will not >> >>> return until 01/04/2004. >> >> >> >> He must feel very lucky being off for 3 months (payed ?) >> > >> > I believe the Americans do it backwards... 1/04/2004 being >> > January 4th rather than 1st of April :-). >> >> Who's doing it backwards depends, I guess, on your point of view. > > Both "4th January 2004" and "January 4th 2004" are clear; "2004/01/04" > is clear, and sorts well; "04/01/2004" is sadly ambiguous due to the > prevalence of the US date format but at least has the benefit of being > in a rational order (i.e. not middle-endian). "01/04/2004" just has > nothing to recommend it at all. > > I guess it's a religious war, but for once the superior options seem > technically obvious. >
My point was that neither is "backwards". Dates are no different than any other language element. Americans usually say, "January fourth, two thousand three" and so they write their dates that way. Brits tend to say "Fourth of January...". It's simply dialect stretching back centuries, and nothing to do with date sorting on computers. In any case, software should adapt to the user, not the other way around. Another example to press the point: "blue sky" "ciel bleu" Which one is "backwards"? -- ....................paul It's working as coded. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
