On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 10:01:07AM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote: > 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: > >> > 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.
You're talking about "4th of January", etc. I'm talking about the meaning of "01/04/2004". Apples and oranges. If you're going to write your dates in an abbreviated form subject to ambiguity then you should pick a rational abbreviated form. > In any case, software should adapt to the user, not the other way > around. This has nothing to do with software. The exact same problem arises on paper forms. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
