From pycyn@aol.com Thu Sep 13 10:42:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 13 Sep 2001 17:42:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 73803 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2001 17:38:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Sep 2001 17:38:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m01.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.4) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Sep 2001 17:38:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.ff.c180248 (4006) for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:36:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:36:03 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] (from lojban-beginners) pi'e To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_ff.c180248.28d24883_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10685 --part1_ff.c180248.28d24883_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/13/2001 11:52:37 AM Central Daylight Time, jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU writes: > Lojban ought to include itself in the world cultural community, and adopt > the ISO-8601 date order, ignoring baseline issues on the grounds that the > original decision was a mistake brought about because nobody at that time > had thought about the subsequently resolved functional issues. > > While that arguments has had its charms over the years, it does not alter the original reason for the order chosen, which was made for internal reasons within Lojban and quite independently of any other issues (whatever they may have been?). {tytypaci} or {paci} within the ccyymmdd format may or may not be ambiguous in context; within the Lojban rules the first is, of course, unneccessary and the second clearly a safe unambiguous date. We're not being antisocial, but we also notice that no one else is changing on some quasigovernmental whim either. When the Mayans take over, we'll be told that we should all use the uudz kale katunob -- and we probably still will use ddmmm(cc)yy (can't do anything about those misplaced cc's). --part1_ff.c180248.28d24883_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/13/2001 11:52:37 AM Central Daylight Time, jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU writes:


Lojban ought to include itself in the world cultural community, and adopt
the ISO-8601 date order, ignoring baseline issues on the grounds that the
original decision was a mistake brought about because nobody at that time
had thought about the subsequently resolved functional issues.

A lot can happen in 16 years


While that arguments has had its charms over the years, it does not alter the original reason for the order chosen, which was made for internal reasons within Lojban and quite independently of any other issues (whatever they may have been?). {tytypaci} or {paci} within the ccyymmdd format may or may not be ambiguous in context; within the Lojban rules the first is, of course, unneccessary and the second clearly a safe unambiguous date.  We're not being antisocial, but we also notice that no one else is changing on some quasigovernmental whim either.  When the Mayans take over, we'll be told that we should all use the uudz kale katunob -- and we probably still will use ddmmm(cc)yy (can't do anything about those misplaced cc's). --part1_ff.c180248.28d24883_boundary--