Re: mutt/1296: iso date/time format by default
[=- Vincent Lefevre wrote on Wed 28.Sep'05 at 17:21:45 +0200 -=]
> I meant the date part of the attribution line: Instead of
> containing the month in letters (possible abbreviated), the
> default date format should contain the corresponding number, as
> in "2005-09-28".
> {...}
> Anyway I don't think that there exists a format adapted to anyone,
> in particular for the 24-hour format vs the am/pm format.
It need not be a match for everyone, but a suitable default for a
majority.
My intention to ignite a discussion was to provide a best
default for the majority of new users, meaning the chance of
needing to change it is minimal for newbies.
As non-US-native (majority) I consider 24h time-format as best choice.
As human (majority, too ;) I consider the month-abbreviation as
preferred over numbers only date-format, because of potential
confusion by numbers only: it's hard to tell which part the month
is, it's still too often used ambiguously.
Both applies to both index & attribution.
24h seems to be agreed on as more useful default for a majority.
The month-format in attribution is critical because of localized
month names, so I see the point of having neutral numbers, but most
month names are pretty similar in most languages.
> > I way prefer an English attribution perfect for English guys, and
> > configurable for others.
>
> Why English? Is English the laguage that is the most spoken?
Maybe not by population, but when it comes to international
exchange, English is the way for non-similar language speakers.
So, I agree with Alain about English 24h time-format & month-name
abbreviation.
I appear inconsistent, but I'm just trying to take the best of
both worlds.
--
© Rado S. -- So much to do, but too little time to take care of it all.