Re: :-) A Brand-New Language! :-)

[Karel Thoenissen <thoenissen@hello.nl>]

Robert Dewar schreef:

> In article <38e8ab71$1@excalibur.gbmtech.net>,
>   "John Herro" <john@prousa.net> wrote:
> > but I think 2000-April-01 or 2000-Apr-01 is
> > just as unambiguous and easier to read.
>
> Yes, and Esperanto is easier to read than English :-)
>
> Computer people always like to try to change common
> usage in this way, but it won't work. The full
> form
>
> April 3, 2000
>
> is still perfectly clear, and is actually the most
> common usage in many countries. I do not think you
> are about to change that :-)

Name, say, three countries not being anglosaxon that use this format.

>
> The US 4/3/2000 is simply to be understood as short
> hand for this longer form.

It is ambiguous in almost every continental European country I know.

>
> As always, the format is not that critical, like
> endianness, it is the lack of a common standard that
> causes trouble.

It is critical in international communications, say in e-commerce.

>
> By the way, the idiot customs department in the US
> uses the European style for dates. naturally most
> americans fill out the form wrong :-)
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

As usual Americans have a perverted view in these matters. Have they
already reached a standard on the use of am and pm for the time between
12.00 and 1.00? Or in the use of metric units?

--

Groeten, Karel Th�nissen