Xref: utzoo comp.text:2334 comp.std.internat:393 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!mit-amt!garp!henry From: henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) Newsgroups: comp.text,comp.std.internat Subject: Re: All numeric representation of dates Message-ID: <2979@mit-amt> Date: 29 Aug 88 21:31:29 GMT References: <1988Aug28.010835.17290@utzoo.uucp> <2882@hubcap.UUCP> Sender: usenet@mit-amt Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) Organization: The Temple of St. Todd the Incontinent Lines: 25 billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu wrote: ->Henry Spencer wrote: ->> Of course, in (at least) English-speaking areas, where people are much more ->> familiar with the month names than the month numbers, using all-numeric ->> dates in the human interface is STUPID STUPID STUPID. ->> -> Ah, I see... Tell me, do you think your odometer should present -> the last two digits first, then some verbal representation of -> the next-to-last two digits, followed by the remaining digits? no, it shouldn't, because those last two digits on your odometer don't have much significance in the daily course of events in a particular person's life. the dates of various events do. days, months, and years have significance outside of their inclusion in a particular date; the hundreds and thousands place of my odometer doesn't. (how many people out there know *exactly* what their odometer reading is? ... how many people out there know *exactly* what today's date is?) -> If not, then why should a chronometer be any different?? because a chronometer and a clock aren't necessarily the same thing. they both keep time, but they keep time for different purposes. # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # {decvax,harvard,mit-eddie}!garp!henry /