Re: mutt/1296: iso date/time format by default
[=- Thomas Zehetbauer wrote on Wed 28.Sep'05 at 22:30:18 +0200 -=]
> > {...}: it's hard to tell which part the month
> >is, it's still too often used ambiguously.
>
> After y2k there remain only two date formats that may be
> confused: DD/MM/YYYY and MM/DD/YYYY. This is why ISO-8601 places
> the year first and makes the format unambigous.
If all adhered to it, then it would be fine. But since in the wild
it's not yet widely adopted, people still do nasty things.
Ambiguity doesn't arise from different formats used only with
mutt, but what is used everywhere else, too. With y2k not
everything got better, some still use only 2 digits for year,
making confusion even worse. ;)
[=- Vincent Lefevre wrote on Wed 28.Sep'05 at 22:49:31 +0200 -=]
> Numbers are also a kind of abbreviation, and month numbers are
> also very often used by humans (and it seems that in France,
> numbers are used more often than month abbreviations).
>
> > {...}, so I see the point of having neutral numbers, but most
> > month names are pretty similar in most languages.
>
> I disagree.
(see below)
[=- Andrew W. Nosenko wrote on Thu 29.Sep'05 at 12:45:21 +0300 -=]
> > So, I agree with Alain about English 24h time-format & month-name>
> > abbreviation.
> no (for localized month abbrevs), just because of first "yes".
> Not all localesuses Latin alphabet, not all users are able to
> read and understand e.g.Cyrillic scripting. Just for example:
> ??, 29 ??? 2005
> (that is the same as: Thu 29 Sep 2005)
> --Andrew W. Nosenko <andrew.w.nosenko@xxxxxxxxx>
Ok, I'm convinced that month name abbrevs. are not the best idea
then, so let's take ISO. I hope at least 24h has a majority.
--
© Rado S. -- So much to do, but too little time to take care of it all.