From nicholas@uci.edu Thu Sep 13 18:26:41 2001
Return-Path: <nicholas@uci.edu>
X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 14 Sep 2001 01:26:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 14514 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2001 21:48:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Sep 2001 21:48:29 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Sep 2001 21:48:25 -0000
Received: from localhost (nicholas@localhost)
  by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22855;
  Thu, 13 Sep 2001 14:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: e4e.oac.uci.edu: nicholas owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 14:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender: <nicholas@e4e.oac.uci.edu>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: Nick NICHOLAS <nicholas@uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [lojban] (from lojban-beginners) pi'e
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.30.0109131437380.7222-100000@e4e.oac.uci.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
From: Nick NICHOLAS <nicholas@uci.edu>


The YY-MM-DD format which the ISO has prescribes is what I've been using
for the past ten years; I was taught it as an engineering student. There's
a lot of it about. The kind of "noone else
is doing it, quasigovernmental whim" stuff pc brings up is (a) bogus
(though characteristically libertarian :-) ), and
(b) the reason why the metric system will never happen in the States.
It's nonsense, but it's you guys' loss.

The Lojban-internal reasons adduced are also not compelling to me. Noone's
going to confuse dates with trailing sumti; it'd be quite OK not to have
them behave the same. After all, Linnaean taxonomy is not going to work
like that in Lojban either: you'll still be naming Genus and Species, and
omitting every taxon above it.

That said, I am committed to the baseline (yes, I'm avoiding using the
word I'd normally use for now), which means my Lojban web page is my only
page that *doesn't* have YY-MM-DD. But, reason being reason, I see no
cause not to allow YY-MM-DD in Lojban text if explicitly signalled. Date
ordering is not hardcoded into the grammar, after all.

As long as noone defends MM-DD-YY -- or even *considers* using it in
Lojban -- I'm not too fussed.

(After all, if it wasn't for the braindamage of MM-DD-YY, do you think the
ISO would have even bothered mandating YY-MM-DD? It's the only reason
there's any ambiguity to dates at all.)

Nick, who's still getting caught out by MM-DD-YY after living in the
States for 2.5 years.

-- 
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Nick Nicholas, Breathing I REJECT {gumri}
nicholas@uci.edu (Lojban Wiki, Resurrected Gismu)


