From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun May 07 10:07:39 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32235 invoked from network); 7 May 2000 17:07:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 May 2000 17:07:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.128) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 May 2000 17:07:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 375 invoked by uid 0); 7 May 2000 17:07:28 -0000 Message-ID: <20000507170728.374.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.60 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 07 May 2000 10:07:28 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.60] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Lojban / Most translated Web Page Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 10:07:28 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" la lojbab cusku di'e >It is not as if such conventions could not work; rather it is >not in the book (or any Lojban material) that way. Would a different >convention be a baseline change? Would it contradict anything in the Book? I couldn't find any mention of dates in the book. Only an example of hours:minutes:seconds. So there seems to be no baseline on that. It has to be decided by usage. If you write the date in full, it doesn't matter which convention you use, both are clear as long as you write the four digits for the year. There is obviously a demand by lojbanists for the 2000-05-07 format, which is not surprising because it is in some sense the most "logical". co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com