DECK@BMLSCK11.BITNET (Hans Deckers) (02/09/90)
On Wed, 7 Feb 90 14:38:27 EST John Wagner said: >.. >I am making several modifications, but I'll use the case of a PROFS >file as an example. Once the mail file is recognized as being in >PROFS format, the MAILPROF routine is called to reformat the headers >into RFC822 conformance (we hope). If the file is from VNET, I now >.. >Is there anything else I should be doing? John, Europeans would be delighted if - when reformatting PROFS headers - you would pay attention to the date format the sending PROFS system is using ( mmddyy (US) ddmmyy (EUR) ).. Hans D.
SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Richard A. Schafer) (02/09/90)
On Thu, 8 Feb 90 11:51:25 CET Hans Deckers said: >Europeans would be delighted if - when reformatting PROFS headers - >you would pay attention to the date format the sending PROFS system >is using ( mmddyy (US) ddmmyy (EUR) ).. It's not doing that now? I'm sure trying to do it, based on what I've been able to learn about IBM's secret PROFS format, with the help of Joe Sparrow at U Victoria. Richard
MAINTCMS@PUCC.BITNET (John Wagner) (02/10/90)
On Thu, 8 Feb 90 11:51:25 CET Hans Deckers said: >Europeans would be delighted if - when reformatting PROFS headers - >you would pay attention to the date format the sending PROFS system >is using ( mmddyy (US) ddmmyy (EUR) ).. Is there a flag somewhere in the PROFS header I can use to detemine what format was there to begin with?
SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Richard A. Schafer) (02/10/90)
The flag isn't in the PROFS header, John, but is in the last line of the original PROFS-format file. For all that I currently know about PROFS file formats, see the comments in the beginning of MAILPROF XEDIT. Now if only IBM would actually document these things, life would be little easier. Of course, OfficeVision will probably make dramatic changes. :-( Richard
NADWL@HDEDH1.BITNET (Scott Ophof) (02/10/90)
On Thu, 8 Feb 90 11:51:25 CET Hans Deckers said: >On Wed, 7 Feb 90 14:38:27 EST John Wagner said: >>.. >>Is there anything else I should be doing? >Europeans would be delighted if - when reformatting PROFS headers - >you would pay attention to the date format the sending PROFS system >is using ( mmddyy (US) ddmmyy (EUR) ).. The format you're suggesting would only add to the confusion. Same for the "mm/dd/yy" and "dd/mm/yy" formats. I would prefer seeing any of the following to the exclusion of all others: - ccyymmdd (where century "cc" is optional) - mm/dd/yy (the US version) - dd Month ccyy (where "Month" is a word, and century "cc" is optional) - dd/mm-ccyy (note "-" to separate month and year parts, and "cc" again optional) Does anyone know of other NON-confusing date formats? Thank goodness the time is consistent (hh:mm:ss, where ":ss" is optional)... (Please, this comment about "time" is *NOT* meant to open a discussion). Regards. Scott/
MAINT@DERRZE1.BITNET (Rainer M Woitok) (02/13/90)
On Fri, 9 Feb 90 09:53:12 SET Scott Ophof said: > ... >Does anyone know of other NON-confusing date formats? Yes, the ISO format: ccyy-mm-dd. Sincerely Rainer .----------------------------------------------------------------------. | Rainer M. Woitok | Phone : (+49-9131) 85-7811,-7031 | | Regionales Rechenzentrum | Fax : (+49-9131) 30 29 41 | | Friedrich-Alexander-Universitaet | Telex : d 629 755 tf erl | | D-8520 Erlangen | e-Mail : MAINT@DERRZE1.BITNET | | West Germany | | '----------------------------------------------------------------------'