Re: [OT Why GB English is different] Re: Mozilla firefox en-gb
- To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: [OT Why GB English is different] Re: Mozilla firefox en-gb
- From: Roel Schroeven <rschroev_nospam_ml@fastmail.fm>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 21:28:56 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 409A91F8.6000608@fastmail.fm>
- In-reply-to: <1STBK-44C-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
- References: <1S52h-147-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <1SRgJ-27k-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <1SSms-2XI-51@gated-at.bofh.it> <1SSZg-3vy-59@gated-at.bofh.it> <1STBK-44C-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
William Ballard wrote:
I was trying to argue that with my Math Prof. that for consistencies
sake either the year or the day must come first, followed by units in
consistent order: either yyyy-mm-dd or dd-mm-yyyy.
He was all into Jungian psychology, and he was telling me that it's all
about what information people need to know more than some slavish
devotion to consistency. When you give a date the odds are pretty good
the year is well known, so it can go last. The month is not as likely
to be well known, and it needs to be established before the day means
anything.
He sure convinced me. But like I said, his main point was conveying to
me sometimes how a consistency is not the best value: others trump it.
He would never convince me. Sure, in many circumstances the year is not
very important, but there are lots of cases where it is relevant.
Historical dates, for example: when did Douglas Adams die? A:
2001-05-11. You can even strip of irrelevant parts: 2001-05 if you don't
need to know the exact day.
I'm all for consistency, since new and unforeseen use cases can appear,
which will obsolete any premature optimizations.
--
"Codito ergo sum"
Roel Schroeven
Reply to: