🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <1988Aug28.010835.17290@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> In article <622@uwovax.uwo.ca> miller@uwovax.uwo.ca (Greg Miller) writes:
>>The international standard for the representation of dates in all numeric form
>>is ISO 2014.  As far as I am aware, the University of Western Ontario has
>>officially adopted this format for the all numeric representation of dates.  
> 
> 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.
> 
> I also question the human engineering of forms that put the year first.
> It is consistent, and in some sense elegant, but it is poorly adapted to
> human needs.  The most important information should be first.  For most
> uses of dates, that is the day number, followed by the month.

     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?

     If not, then why should a chronometer be any different??

     If you REALLY want to question methods of presenting time, why
     not investigate the asinine 12-hour format used in the United
     States?  The 24-hour, European standard is MUCH more sensible
     than the American practice of ignoring the large carrier space
     provided by the two-digit hour representation, and then requiring
     the use of two extra alphabetical characters to indicate which
     portion of the 24-hour carrier space is intended...

     But in a country which continues to use the obsolescent British
     measurements when even Britain has abandoned it in favor of the
     far more sensible metric system, such stupidity is to be expected.


                                        Bill Wolfe