From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Sep 14 10:25:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 14 Sep 2001 17:25:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 77623 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2001 15:49:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Sep 2001 15:49:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta1 with SMTP; 14 Sep 2001 15:49:09 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (ppp17.net-A.cais.net [205.252.61.17]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8EFn3143755 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:49:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010914112929.00a81260@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:46:04 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Sane and Rational date format (was: (from lojban-beginners) pi'e In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 06:16 PM 9/13/01 -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: >On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, James F. Carter wrote: > > > > I think that when dates and times are combined, and they are all > numeric, the > > > order should be year, month, day, hour, minute, second. > > > > I agree. ISO 8601 specifies dates in the following variant formats: > > > > ccyymmdd 19991231 > > ccyymmddhhmmss 19991231235959 > > ccyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss 1999-12-31 23:59:59 > > And trimming any of the time parts from either end, if unambiguous. Which it usually is. I can't leave off the century, and report the time my computer says it is locally: 0109141131 could equally be January 9 of some unspecified year at 14:11:31. > As international relations (of the positive kind) grow and strengthen it is > > important that partners be able to interchange data, specifically digital > > records containing ISO-8859-x encoded dates. All cultures are going to > > have to give up their idiosyncratic date formats and adopt a common > > standard, of which ISO-8601 is the presently obvious one, besides being > > totally serviceable in my opinion. Except that no human being uses it. I've never had anyone respond to a question as to the date who gave me the time as well. USUALLY when I ask for the date from a human, I get the month specified by name rather than number - I use numbers as an abbreviation in filling out forms. I'm not opposed to world standards, but this simply isn't one for real human beings, only for computers. It is a compatible standard, and it is simple to understand without weird >internal reversals of endianism, following a single rule. These arguments >seem to override invocations of tradition. detri4 can be filled to clue in >the readers that cuvjdikapoi is being used. Certainly if someone wants to use a non-Lojbanic date format, it can be marked in the date place. I would use tarmi in the lujvo though, maybe tedmartai. Or of course la .isobixanopam. But I probably won't. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org