nicer url thoughts?

rf wrote:

>
> "Paul Furman" <paul-.DeleteThis@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
> news:47%Hi.9082$z_5.811@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> On 2007-09-17, bizshop wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
>>>>
>>>>No need for the dashes - and 20070624.is ISO proper.
>>>
>>> ISO requires the dashes, and it is 2007-06-24 not the
>>> nonsensical 6-24-07.
>>
>> I've got both systems now. 6-24-07 is what I'm most comfortable
>> with
>
> You might be but less that 5% of the planet uses that format.
> The other 95% will wonder what the 24th month of the year is.

You don't seem to think that that other 95% of the people on the
planet are very intelligent if you think that when they see "6-24-
07" they don't simply realize it's "the other system" and interpret
that way -- the way the 5% is smart enough to do that when we see
"24-6-07". Of course, you could be right.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org <------------- New Site Aug 28

In article <f4d4s4-gpb.ln1.DeleteThis@xword.teksavvy.com>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> it is 2007-06-24 not the nonsensical
> 6-24-07.

The immediate interest of a date is often the particular day so
that starting makes sense. Then the month, then the year -
because the die is set and you have to go in hierarchical order.
Or perhaps the regular order of a computer path, the top to the
particular, year, month, then day. Anything in between is indeed
nonsensical.

--
dorayme

In article <CM-dnXOOEsmHGW3bnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d.RemoveThis@comcast.com>,
Ed Mullen <ed.RemoveThis@edmullen.net> wrote:

> rf wrote:
> > "Paul Furman" <paul-.RemoveThis@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
> > news:47%Hi.9082$z_5.811@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2007-09-17, bizshop wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
> >>>> No need for the dashes - and 20070624.is ISO proper.
> >>> ISO requires the dashes, and it is 2007-06-24 not the nonsensical
> >>> 6-24-07.
> >> I've got both systems now. 6-24-07 is what I'm most comfortable with
> >
> > You might be but less that 5% of the planet uses that format. The other 95%
> > will wonder what the 24th month of the year is.
> >
>
> So, 95% of the planet is too stupid to figure it out? That's a pretty
> sad opinion of most of the world.

This some kind of American sadness?

--
dorayme

rf wrote:
> "Ed Mullen" <ed.TakeThisOut@edmullen.net> wrote in message
> news:CM-dnXOOEsmHGW3bnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> rf wrote:
>>> "Paul Furman" <paul-.TakeThisOut@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>>> news:47%Hi.9082$z_5.811@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2007-09-17, bizshop wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, and I could change 2007-06-24 to 6-24-07
>>>>>> No need for the dashes - and 20070624.is ISO proper.
>>>>> ISO requires the dashes, and it is 2007-06-24 not the nonsensical
>>>>> 6-24-07.
>>>> I've got both systems now. 6-24-07 is what I'm most comfortable with
>>> You might be but less that 5% of the planet uses that format. The other
>>> 95% will wonder what the 24th month of the year is.
>>>
>> So, 95% of the planet is too stupid to figure it out? That's a pretty sad
>> opinion of most of the world.
>
> Ok, figure this one out:
> 6/5/07
>
> Are you going to be a nearly month late for your meeting?
>

If I knew (which I certainly would in your example) the source of the
message I'd know. If I were uncertain I would clarify it.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Don't use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice.

Chris F.A. Johnson:

> ISO requires the dashes

No, ISO8601 does not require hyphens. The basic format YYYYMMDD is
fine if compactness trumps readability. YYYY-MM-DD is the extended
format.

--
Jock