miller@uwovax.uwo.ca (Greg Miller) (08/27/88)
In article <183@dcs.UUCP>, wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: > Actually, (YY)YY-MM-DD, or rather (YY)YY MM DD, is the way school children in > Germany and Austria are taught nowadays to write the date. I believe it is at > least a DIN and OeNORM standard (German & Austrian), and may even be an > ISO/SI standard. Seems that Europe is ahead of North America in that respect. ^^ SI refers to the International System d'unite; ISO is the International Standards Organization, which has produced standards on the use of SI, viz ISO 31, ISO 1000. 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. Greg Miller ---- InterNet: miller@vax85.uwo.CA MAIL: Room 024, Chemistry Building University of Western Ontario NetNorth: MILLER@UWOVAX.BITNET LONDON, Ontario, N6A 5B7 UseNet: miller@julian.UUCP PHONE: (519) 679-2111 ext 6325
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/28/88)
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. For internal forms, never seen by humans (programmers don't count :-)), ISO numeric dates are fine. They are also of some use in environments where multilingual legibility takes priority over legibility in any specific language. Otherwise, please be sensible rather than standard! -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,) (08/29/88)
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
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (08/29/88)
In article <2882@hubcap.UUCP> billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >From article <1988Aug28.010835.17290@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer): > 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?? Can you read? Henry argued from the FAMILIARITY of the month names versus numbers. If you can tell me of one place where the scheme you describe is more FAMILIAR to folks than an all-numeric mileage, then fine. If you can't, stop using silly, contrived examples. > 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. We are discussing (and questioning) representation of DATES, not the TIME within a specific date :-). And the "asinine American practice" you are flaming used to be, and still is to some extent, the practice of ALL ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES. British measurements continue to be in quite some use in Britain, co-existing with metric measurements only under the pressures created by EEC membership. If you don't believe that, please explain why my in-laws in London still get their milk delivered in pint bottles, why distances and speed limits are posted in miles all over Britain, etc. The only difference I notice in the use of metric measurements is that on food packages in the US, the metric designation of weight or volume is enclosed in parentheses, while in Britain both metric and imperial designations are shown without parentheses. Besides, what are you trying to do to Henry? He was under fire only recently for apparently disagreeing with NASA -- do you want him to publicly disagree with and flame the entire US population? -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
amos@taux02.UUCP (Amos Shapir) (08/29/88)
In article <2882@hubcap.UUCP> billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: > 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?? > [more about 24 vs. 12 hour representation] You miss the point: we are talking about representation of information for use by humans, which means it should be done the way humans are used to do it. Computers (and yes, programmers too) should invest the extra effort to present data in a form useful to their customers. For scientific purposes, time is already presented in the Julian date system (e.g., the time now is 2447402.78570 days). It would be nice if everybody used this system. Coming to think of it, everybody should use the binary system - it would be so much easier to program! :-) -- Amos Shapir amos@nsc.com National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel Tel. +972 52 522261 34 48 E / 32 10 N (My other cpu is a NS32532)
hulsebos@philmds.UUCP (Rob Hulsebos) (08/29/88)
In article <2882@hubcap.UUCP> billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: > 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. It's not stupidity... As far as I can recall from history lessons a long, long time ago, in 1776 or so the US Congress adopted a currency system based on the decimal system instead of on the British currency system. Congress also decided that English would the the language of the country, instead of German. Those in favor of English won with the smallest possible margin of only _1_ vote. I wonder what the course of history would have been had German become the US language. Wouldn't life be much easier if the USA would speak German :-) and thus also use the metric system ? Even the word 'dollar' is derived from German! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ R.A. Hulsebos ...!mcvax!philmds!hulsebos Philips I&E Automation Modules phone: +31-40-785723 Building TQ-III-1, room 11 Eindhoven, The Netherlands # cc -O disclaimer.c ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,) (08/29/88)
From article <187@dcs.UUCP>, by wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul): > In article <2882@hubcap.UUCP> billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >>From article <1988Aug28.010835.17290@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer): >> 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?? > > Can you read? Henry argued from the FAMILIARITY of the month names versus > numbers. If you can tell me of one place where the scheme you describe is > more FAMILIAR to folks than an all-numeric mileage, then fine. If you can't, > stop using silly, contrived examples. Yes, I can read. But familiarity does not imply that a system is in any sense optimal. If that were true, there would be no point in converting to the metric system... > [12-hour time measurement, British units of measure] used to be, and still > is to some extent, the practice of ALL ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES. See above. > Besides, what are you trying to do to Henry? To point out that when an international standard exists which is clearly superior to the one currently in use, that standard should be ADOPTED and not opposed because "we've done it this way for the last 2 zillion years, and we haven't the sense to change". (Not a direct quote, but a basic summary of the position). Bill Wolfe
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/30/88)
In article <2882@hubcap.UUCP> billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >> 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? Since the number on an odometer is simply a kilometer/mile number, with no significant internal structure, the analogy is invalid. If mileage were given as a <country, state, county, miles> tuple, would you want the state displayed as a name or a number? > 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... Well, personally I use the 24-hour form whenever possible. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) (08/30/88)
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 / <henry@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA
# {decvax,harvard,mit-eddie}!garp!henry / <henry@uk.ac.sussex.cvaxa>ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (08/30/88)
In article <107@taux02.UUCP> amos@taux02.UUCP (Amos Shapir) writes: >For scientific purposes, time is already presented in the Julian date >system (e.g., the time now is 2447402.78570 days). It would be nice if >everybody used this system. Coming to think of it, everybody should use >the binary system - it would be so much easier to program! :-) Continuing in the same spirit of humour: the Imperial system of liquid measures *was* binary!
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (08/30/88)
In article <2896@hubcap.UUCP> wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >From article <187@dcs.UUCP>, by wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul): >> Can you read? Henry argued from the FAMILIARITY of the month names versus >> numbers. If you can tell me of one place where the scheme you describe is >> more FAMILIAR to folks than an all-numeric mileage, then fine. If you can't, >> stop using silly, contrived examples. > > Yes, I can read. But familiarity does not imply that a system > is in any sense optimal. If that were true, there would be no > point in converting to the metric system... There probably isn't, not for the little old lady shopping for groceries, and not in a lot of other situations. If and when we convert to the metric system, it won't be because it's optimal for every application, but because it's simpler to have just one system worldwide. >> Besides, what are you trying to do to Henry? > > To point out that when an international standard exists which > is clearly superior to the one currently in use, that standard > should be ADOPTED and not opposed because "we've done it this > way for the last 2 zillion years, and we haven't the sense to change". "Clearly superior" depends on the situation and application. For much of human interaction, alpha-numeric dates are clearly superior to all-numeric dates, simply because human beings are not computers or calculators. I don't think you understand our motives for not blindly accepting anything anybody sets up as a "standard", international or otherwise. It's not because we've always done it this way, it's because for some purposes, the "standard" is less than optimal, and there's nothing to be gained by adopting the standard. > (Not a direct quote, but a basic summary of the position). No -- your (erroneous) interpretation of the position, and it illustrates your obnoxious attitude. I didn't reply to your initial article (or to this one) because I want to crusade against ISO standards, but because I dislike your toneand attitude. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
steve@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) (08/30/88)
From article <187@dcs.UUCP>, by wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul): > In article <2882@hubcap.UUCP> billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >>From article <1988Aug28.010835.17290@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer): >> Ah, I see... Tell me, do you think your odometer should present >> the last two digits first, then some verbal representation of ... >> If not, then why should a chronometer be any different?? > > Can you read? Henry argued from the FAMILIARITY of the month names versus > numbers. If you can tell me of one place where the scheme you describe is > more FAMILIAR to folks than an all-numeric mileage, then fine. If you can't, > stop using silly, contrived examples. If he is talking of the article I'm thinking of, the guy called the all-numeric representation STUPID (with, I believe, caps). He argued that the ANR is stupid and that other orderings MAKE MORE SENSE, as opposed to being more familiar. to quote: ))> I also question the human engineering of forms that put the year first. ))> .... The most important information should be first. For most ))> uses of dates, that is the day number, followed by the month. One thing I'd like to point out is that, in Canada, we have a problem because there are TWO common methods in use: The Canadian method and the American method. (don't ask which is which..) One goes: mm dd yy the other: dd mm yy It can be reall fun trying to tell the difference between Jan 8/88 (010888 and 1st Aug /88 (010888). At LEAST with the new method, YOU CAN TELL THE (&'$#%!) DIFFERENCE!!!!! (at lest until 2001, that is, and I hope we'll be used to the new method by then) -- ------------- Stephen Samuel (userzxcv@ualtamts.bitnet or alberta!edm!steve) MS-DOS : CPM impersonates UNIX ** OS/2 : IBM impersonates APPLE
ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (Lee Dickey) (08/30/88)
I seem to have stimulated some discussion by mentioning my preference
for the representation of dates as "yyyy mm dd". I have more.
Someone argues that significant things should come first and then says that
days or months are more significant. To him I would say that as one ages,
ones perspective changes (smile). But I digress. Let me get to the point.
I find lines of the type
From site!user Tue Aug 30 07:52:53 EDT 1988
(which appear on mail messages on my machine) to be slightly
irritating. Every time I think about them I get the idea that
the programmer/designer included the year as an afterthought.
I am glad to see that some news posting programs now give date/time
with a "GMT" attached, and I wish that more mailers did this. I
correspond with people in different time zones, and sometimes find
it painful to figure out what time it was when the message was written.
I think I would like a line in news and mail files that gives the
date and time in a standardized ( = agreed upon ) format.
I suppose we will continue to have lines like the above, and/or
like
Date: 31 Aug 88 20:03:03 EST
(or Date: 31 Aug 88 11:03:03 PM EDT :-) )
which seem to abound today, but I would like to see a line like
SI-Date: 1988 09 01 03:03:03 GMT
presented in SI or ISO format, for some agreed upon time zone
(how about GMT, or Coordinated Universal Time).
There is no a-priori reason why such a line has to be seen by a reader.
(You might have the option now to suppress certain lines in the file.)
But a glossy piece of software would process such a line and tell
me what time it was here (and/or what time it was there) when my
correspondent sent the message.
--
L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo.
ljdickey@WATDCS.UWaterloo.ca ljdickey@water.BITNET
ljdickey@water.UUCP ..!uunet!watmath!water!ljdickey
ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu zwicky@pterodactyl.cis.ohio-state.edu (Elizabeth D. Zwicky) (08/30/88)
In article <774@philmds.UUCP> hulsebos@philmds.UUCP (Rob Hulsebos) writes: >Congress also decided that English would the the language of the country, >instead of German. Those in favor of English won with the smallest possible >margin of only _1_ vote. I wonder what the course of history would have been >had German become the US language. I've been sucked into irrelevancy :-) This is a popular fallacy. Actually, the Congress has never (yet) voted about the language of the USA. English just kind of took over. There were still large German-speaking areas until WWII; we're talking large chunks of *states* where public school was taught partially in German. My father grew up in Pennsylvania-Dutch country, and can (barely) remember the change-over. There are still small areas that are German speaking around here in religious communities. Elizabeth Zwicky (zwicky@cis.ohio-state.edu)
celms@adm.ARPA (Dr. Aivars Celmins ) (08/30/88)
In article <774@philmds.UUCP> hulsebos@philmds.UUCP (Rob Hulsebos) writes: > .... >Congress also decided that English would the the language of the country, >instead of German. Those in favor of English won with the smallest possible >margin of only _1_ vote. I wonder what the course of history would have been >had German become the US language. >Wouldn't life be much easier if the USA would speak German :-) >and thus also use the metric system ? Even the word 'dollar' is derived from >German! > Rob, you need some refreshing of your histoy lessons: (1) USA was one of the 17 countries which signed the original Metric Convention in 1875. (The metric system was legalized in USA in 1866.) (2) Metric standards are by law the basis of USA standards since 1893. (3) There is no "official language" in the USA. The one-vote majority alluded to in your message pertains to the State of Pennsylvania where English is indeed the official language. Aivars Celmins
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/30/88)
In article <2896@hubcap.UUCP> wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: > To point out that when an international standard exists which > is clearly superior to the one currently in use... "Clearly superior" IN WHAT WAY? It's easier for computers to use. Period. I see no evidence that it is anything but inferior for human beings, which is supposed to be the point of the exercise. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,) (08/31/88)
From article <189@dcs.UUCP>, by wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul): > In article <2896@hubcap.UUCP> wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >> [...] familiarity does not imply that a system >> is in any sense optimal. If that were true, there would be no >> point in converting to the metric system... > > There probably isn't, not for the little old lady shopping for groceries, > and not in a lot of other situations. If and when we convert to the metric > system, it won't be because it's optimal for every application, but because > it's simpler to have just one system worldwide. Precisely. When there is no need for 2 systems, one must be standardized upon. Now we have a perfectly good system for odometers, and a standard exists for applying the same system to chronometers. By virtue of simplicity, completeness, and consistency with similar situations, the YYYY MM DD standard is the obvious choice. As for the little old lady, what she does is of relatively little significance. What matters is that the next generation, and the ones beyond it, do not inherit the complex and inconsistent systems used by their ancestors. >>> Besides, what are you trying to do to Henry? >> >> To point out that when an international standard exists which >> is clearly superior to the one currently in use, that standard >> should be ADOPTED and not opposed because "we've done it this >> way for the last 2 zillion years, and we haven't the sense to change". > > "Clearly superior" depends on the situation and application. For much of human > interaction, alpha-numeric dates are clearly superior to all-numeric dates, > simply because human beings are not computers or calculators. When a single system possessing the above virtues covers all situations and applications, it should be adopted. As for the contention that human beings are not computers of calculators, I submit that the form MM/DD/YY, an all-numeric form, is much more widely used than all the alphabetic-month-representation forms put together. Since this newsgroup is written in English, let's consider languages such as Hebrew, which are read from right to left, or Chinese, which is read from top to bottom. To people whose native language is English, these forms appear unnatural; to those who are native speakers, nothing could be clearer. I submit that the standard we are discussing will be viewed as totally natural after adoption; if the verbal month-names are almost never encountered, they will come to be viewed as unnatural, and a waste of writing time and space. It is quite obvious that Esperanto is superior to English; but where do we see Esperanto being taught? It is precisely the dysfunctional human resistance to change that prevents our descendants from realizing the benefits of a simple, clear, consistent, and universal language, and which poses the greatest threat to standardization. Bill Wolfe
rokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU (Tomas G. Rokicki) (08/31/88)
. I submit that the form MM/DD/YY, an all-numeric form, is much . more widely used than all the alphabetic-month-representation . forms put together. I would have to disagree with this. I never see business letters dated `5/12/88' or such, computer dates are always `Jan 30', postmarks use either `Aug 26' or `26 Aug', etc. No, alphabetic dates are definitely prevalent. . I submit that the standard we are discussing will be viewed . as totally natural after adoption; if the verbal month-names . are almost never encountered, they will come to be viewed as . unnatural, and a waste of writing time and space. I certainly hope not! I like the names of the months, like the names of the days of the week. When a strictly numeric date format is adopted, the world will be lesser for it. When I ask the computer for the date and time, I prefer 12:05 on Wednesday, 12 March 1943 infinitely over W 19430312.12:05 or any such. Much easier to read. . It is quite obvious that Esperanto is superior to English; Obvious to whom, and for what purpose? Esperanto, in my opinion, is ugly. I like English, for all of its inconsistencies. Writing English is an art. Shakespeare is beautiful; a translation of Shakespeare to Esperanto or even modern english loses so much of its nature. It is precisely the rich nature of English that is lacking in Esperanto that allows such rich and subtle thoughts to be easily and concisely expressed. English words have a long history of usage from which they have derived their connotations if not their total meanings; the last thing we need is a prescriptive language, totally lacking in a history or culture. I am disheartened enough by the disappearence of the subjunctive in modern English. Don't even think about teaching Esperanto to my kids. -tom
drm@tcom.stc.co.uk (David Monksfield) (08/31/88)
In article <2882@hubcap.UUCP> billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >> 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. I think the point here is that people do not necessarily read things one character at a time, from left to right. Familiar chunks (ie. most single words and some phrases) are pattern-matched all at once. Providing a lump of text matches your internal "date" template, the brain is then quite capable of looking at whichever part happens to be most important at the time. If you want 'day of the month', you'll look at whichever place in the date you expect it to be. Thus from a 'human engineering' point of view, it matters little what order things are in. The only problem is in establishing familiarity with a particular format in the first place. I would like to be able to see a 'familiar' date format anywhere in the world, no matter how obscure that format may be. P.S. Typing "date" on this computer gives "Wed Aug 31 08:35:45 WET 1988" How's that for meaningful format and logical ordering? -- Cheers, |||||||| ||||||||| |||||||| "I would prefer ||| ||| ||| something a Dave Monksfield |||||||| ||| ||| little more ||| ||| ||| reliable than drm@htc2,val3,lynx or |||||||| ||| |||||||| hope." -- Avon drm@jura.tcom.stc.co.uk STC Telecommunications (Blake's 7)
gregg1@pyuxe.UUCP (victor scott gregg) (09/01/88)
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. > > Greg Miller > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Not wanting to further the debate on representation of dates, I cautiously ask the following questions: What ISO standard exists for representation of time? Could some one please summarize the standard? The question is asked regarding the use of an international standard for time-stamping transactions. Thanks in advance ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Victor S. Gregg, Bellcore, (201)699-4596, 444 Hoes Lane (1C-206), Piscataway, NJ 08854 gregg@ctt.bellcore.com uunet!bellcore!ctt!gregg ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: My employers probably know the answer, but they won't tell me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
pdc@otter.hple.hp.com (Damian Cugley) (09/01/88)
From rokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU Tue Aug 30 20:12:38 1988 Tuesday 30 Aug 1988 Tom Rokicki: rokicki@polya.Stanford.EDU (replying to Bill Wolfe) > . It is quite obvious that Esperanto is superior to English; > > Obvious to whom, and for what purpose? Esperanto, in my opinion, is > ugly. Esperanto isn't intended to be `superior' to (or to `surplant') any native language. It is merely intended to be a useful *second* language for all people, to allow international communications unencumbered by interpreters, and the appreciation of works of art from all cultures. I'll certainly agree the orthography is a bit on the icky side. The accents are the biggest impediment to Esperanto's progress. Why, oh why, couldn't Zamenhoff [?sp] have had the wit to use just letters without fancy diacritical marks?!?! On the other hand Esperanto was designed to be pleasant on the ear (Z based the pronounciation rules on Italian). The grammar has some elegance in its consistency and simplicity, although the assymetry of the `-in-' infix is a stupid ugly bug which should have been rectified years ago. It's a bit like C: simple and elegant in some ways but suffering from a bad choice of symbols/notation. (Good thing Z didn't use Cyrillic.) > I like English, for all of its inconsistencies. Writing English is an > art. Shakespeare is beautiful; a translation of Shakespeare to Esperanto > or even modern english loses so much of its nature. According to those who are experienced in these things, Esperanto translations are usually far superior to translations into other languages. Esperanto's relative flexibility allows a closer `match' than trying to bend the concepts in Shakespeare to match those in another target language. An Esperanto translation is accessible to any Esperantist, regardless of nationality. > It is precisely the rich nature of English that is lacking in Esperanto > that allows such rich and subtle thoughts to be easily and concisely > expressed. I will certainly concede Esperanto's tendency towards literal meanings can cause loss of some very subtlte distinctions. E.g. `damp' and `moist' both translate to `malseketa'; `beautiful' and `handsome' both become `bela'. Esperanto often expresses concepts concisely that require complicated English phrases - random example: `IMHO' translates to `lau^ mi'. > English words have a long history of > usage from which they have derived their connotations if not their total > meanings; the last thing we need is a prescriptive language, totally > lacking in a history or culture. Esperanto does have *some* history, you know, and a lot of culture: both in translations from around the world and original works. Esperanto's Acadamy is probaly less `prescriptive' than the Acadamie Francaise; like ANSI C, it `codifies existing usage' rather than imposing new ideas. Like C, the speaker can either voluntarily stick to the standard or risk being `nonportable'. The problem with `connotations' is that you can only choose from the set of `Rich And Subtle Thoughts' which happen to exist in the available words. From time to time the connotations change, invalidating the old sentences (which is why Shakespeare's works have to have footnotes explaining the connotations of words like `nice' and `annoy' in the 16th century). Moreover, to express *new* RASTs requires complicated sentences to get around the connotations of the English words. This is often a problem for scientists and mathematicians, who confuse people by carlessly tossing around phrases like `uncountably many' or `almost everywhere' and the like. Esperanto in the main encourages writers to make certain they are saying exactly what they mean. I often get caught out in English when someone else has different connotations attached to a word than I do; this should be less of a problem in Esperanto. Esperantists often happily occupy themselves for hours debating the exact meaning of phrases like `raison d'etre', which is a good way to expand one's (English) vocabulary. > I am disheartened enough by the disappearence of the subjunctive in > modern English. Don't even think about teaching Esperanto to my kids. If `subjunctive' means what I think it does, Esperanto has one (sorry, but I *do* tend to think of `-o words' and `the -us form of a verb' more easily than the correct names when it comes to Esperanto 8-) ). Learning Esperanto is not mutually exclusive to learning English; in fact learning Esperanto at an early-ish age might make it easier to assimilate formal English grammar later. Bill Wolfe: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu > but where do we see Esperanto being taught? Brazil, Japan, China, Russia, many European countries, ... I don't want to start up a flame war on Esperanto (especially in comp.std.internet...), just mention that it does have a few points in its favour ... On the other hand, if you apply Mr Wolfe's criterion for dates to language, you wouldn't end up with Esperanto but instead something like FORTH or LISP with all the words replaced by numbers ... 8-( :^) pdc -- /-------------------\/-------------------------\/------------------------\ | Damian Cugley =@= || pdc@hplb.lb.hp.co.uk || ...!mcvax!ukc!hplb!pdc | | HPLabs Bristol UK || pdc%otter@hplabs.HP.COM || ...!hplabs!otter!pdc | \-------------------/\-------------------------/\------------------------/ (#disclaim <net/std.h> 'His feet are the wrong size for his shoes.')
billp@infmx.UUCP (Bill Potter) (09/01/88)
In article <16995@adm.ARPA>, celms@adm.ARPA (Dr. Aivars Celmins ) writes: > In article <774@philmds.UUCP> hulsebos@philmds.UUCP (Rob Hulsebos) writes: > > .... > >Congress also decided that English would the the language of the country, > >instead of German. Those in favor of English won with the smallest possible > >margin of only _1_ vote. I wonder what the course of history would have been > >had German become the US language. > > > Rob, you need some refreshing of your histoy lessons: > Aivars, Don't you think the above comment is a bit arrogant, or how many Americans could tell us exact details about Dutch history in 1785. That Rob rembered the essence of his history lessons (how many years ago was it Rob?) and got the precise details wrong can, I think, be overlooked. I find it also intriguing to speculate on "what would have happened if ..." the US was a German speaking country. With today being Sept. 1 one question comes to mind. On whose side would they have been in both World Wars? billp -- bill potter ...!uunet!infmx!infmuc!billp informix gmbh, rosenkavalierplatz 14, 8000 Munich 81
hermann@crin.crin.fr (Miki HERMANN) (09/03/88)
In article <324@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <107@taux02.UUCP> amos@taux02.UUCP (Amos Shapir) writes: >>For scientific purposes, time is already presented in the Julian date >>system (e.g., the time now is 2447402.78570 days). It would be nice if >>everybody used this system. Coming to think of it, everybody should use >>the binary system - it would be so much easier to program! :-) > >Continuing in the same spirit of humour: the Imperial system of liquid >measures *was* binary! Even a better suggestion would be to use the French revolutionary calendar. Does someone know which days is the 3rd "brumaire" of the year 199? Miki HERMANN Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy -------------------------------------------- e-mail: hermann@crin.crin.fr post: CRIN, B.P. 239, F-54506 Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy Cedex, FRANCE phone: +33 83.91.20.00 ext(poste) 30.59
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (09/07/88)
In article <3690001@otter.hple.hp.com>, pdc@otter.hple.hp.com (Damian Cugley) writes: > Esperanto often expresses concepts concisely that require complicated > English phrases - random example: `IMHO' translates to `lau^ mi'. And in English it translates to 'I think'. And look, no diacriticals! How does Esperanto compare to other universal languages (loglan?)? That's a better comparison. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' Ferranti International Controls Corporation. "Have you hugged U your wolf today?" peter@ficc.uu.net
alan@stl.stc.co.uk (Alan Spreadbury) (09/09/88)
In article <596@crin.crin.fr> hermann@crin.crin.fr (Miki HERMANN) writes: > >Even a better suggestion would be to use the French revolutionary >calendar. Does someone know which days is the 3rd "brumaire" of the >year 199? > 25 October 1990 (I wonder if Ken Perlow agrees.) -- Alan Spreadbury (alan@stl ...!mcvax!ukc!stl!alan +44-279-29531 x 3700)
dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) (09/12/88)
In article <816@acer.stl.stc.co.uk> alan@acer.UUCP (Alan Spreadbury) writes: > In article <596@crin.crin.fr> hermann@crin.crin.fr (Miki HERMANN) writes: > > > >Even a better suggestion would be to use the French revolutionary > >calendar. Does someone know which days is the 3rd "brumaire" of the > >year 199? > > > 25 October 1990 (I wonder if Ken Perlow agrees.) > Strange, all ten fall on the same day :-). Anyhow, unless you know the algorithm by which the french intended to insert leap years, it is most likely incorrect. No, it is not similar to our calendar. Although the calendar has been precalculated for 102 years, and there appears to be a pattern, it is not clear enough to tell how it would fare in the future. (The pattern gives 8 leapyears in 33 years or 31 in 128 years, with a leapyear after 3 of 4 normal years.) -- dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland INTERNET : dik@cwi.nl BITNET/EARN: dik@mcvax
dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) (09/13/88)
I just had to throw my two bits into the discussion of languages. I don't really know enough about Esperanto to judge its relative merits, but it seems that people who favor it have forgot an essential element. All people seem to favor their own ethnic culture which also has an associated language. If you doubt it, try getting the Quebecois to speak English! They maintain, as many French do that the French is the language of the Gods (or something similar to that). The United States has a similar problem in that immigrants from Latin speaking countries from the south refuse (okay, only some of them) to learn English (the American dialect). Why? Because they have established patterns of thought that are only expressable in Espanol (sorry about the missing tilde). And even if Esperanto is adopted, what is to prevent it from changing? A language is a living thing, something that changes as the people who use it also change. Oops, forgot those French who think that their language is somehow a language of the Gods. I must confess that I am puzzled why they believe that so strongly, even to the point of appointing a committee whose only task is to root out the horrible English phrases that are corrupting their language. Never mind the fact that French is just a corruption of the Latin tongue with the Germanic language of the region, even to the point that the French spoken on the border of Spain is a significantly different dialect from what is spoken on the border of Belgium. Need I say more on the tendency of a language to change? Actually, television, radio, and other means of national and international communication mediums are having a stronger stabilizing force than the French national committee on language. But back to Esperanto, I really don't feel that it is a language worth studying. It is kind of like Latin, a dead language since it isn't used much. Personally, I feel Americans would benefit far more from studying Espanol or another language that is in ACTUAL USE somewhere in the world. People in Europe must also realize that unlike them, Americans really are isolated from day-to-day contact with people who speak other languages. The only exception would be our neighbors to the south. You could count the French speaking Canadians, but learning their dialect would be of little help in France. It really is that different! Even here, many Spanish speakers use the old Castillian dialect which has just as about as much chance of being understood in Spain as our English! Enough said. Nes't Pas? (sp?) dharvey@wsccs
bas+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bruce Sherwood) (09/15/88)
> I will certainly concede Esperanto's tendency towards literal meanings can > cause loss of some very subtle distinctions. E.g. `damp' and `moist' both > translate to `malseketa'; `beautiful' and `handsome' both become `bela'. Actually, damp would typically be translated as humida, and moist as malseketa. Similarly, a better translation of handsome is probably bonaspekta or possibly belaspekta. There is plenty of nuance available in Esperanto. When I first lived in Italy I thought Italian was an impoverished language because there were lots of things I could say in English that I couldn't say in Italian. Guess where the real fault turned out to lie.... On the cultural issues, I agree completely. The cultural value of learning Esperanto is very high. I posted a longer note on this topic to ext.in.esperanto. Bruce Sherwood
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (09/16/88)
In article <645@wsccs.UUCP> dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes: > >I just had to throw my two bits into the discussion of languages. >I don't really know enough about Esperanto to judge its relative merits, >but it seems that people who favor it have forgot an essential element. >All people seem to favor their own ethnic culture which also has an >associated language. So what? To quote "Teach Yourself Esperanto": Esperanto is the _auxiliary_ language invented by ... Zamenhof. ... It is in no way opposed to the national languages; on the contrary, it creates in those who learn it an interest in the whole matter, and this very often leads to their learning one or more of the national languages. It is precisely because there are such strong feelings attached to existing national languages that Zamenhof proposed an invented one: there would be no strong feelings against it. >Enough said. Nes't Pas? (sp?) That's "N'est-ce pas?" "Esperanto ... often leads to .. learning ...".
gordan@maccs.McMaster.CA (gordan) (09/18/88)
In article <645@wsccs.UUCP> dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes:
-
-You
-could count the French speaking Canadians, but learning their dialect
-would be of little help in France. It really is that different!
This is like saying that knowing North American English would be of
little help in Britain. A bit of an exaggeration.
Time to change the subject line, folks. And maybe the newsgroup, while
yer at it.