Re: A language by any other name
On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:34:53AM -0700, Philip_Brown wrote:
> oh no... now we've gotten to locales, which is yet ANOTHER issue :-/
>
> The specific thing I can think of there is that en_GB would presumably
> default to putting the date in ISO, aka sensible, order.
>
> Whereas presumably en_US would default to bizzaro date order.
[Commenting on use of "sensible, order" for en_GB dates]
Perhaps my assumption is wrong, but I thought Britts used
dd/mm/yyyy format? To me (a USAsian), both this and our
normal way of mm/dd/yyyy is wrong. It should default to
yyyy/mm/dd, gets rid of the guess work if 01/10/1999 is
Jan 10, or 1 of Oct. It would either be 1999/01/10 or
1999/10/01 (both fairly obvious without the need to do a
whois on the senders IP -- not to mention easier to sort
by with the common tools).
Both formats are perfectly fine in their respective
countries, but on the internet where you can't allways be
sure what country a person is from, there should be some
unambiguous way to reference it.
-Ralph
Reply to: