[SpamCop-List] Re: spam is NOT 10 days old to me - got it this a.m.

[caroljean52]

"Porpoise" <porpoise1954 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> <Rhetorical answer>
> Start with the smallest unit, then the medium size unit, then the largest
> unit..... gives you.... dd.mm.yy

This makes perfect sense to me. However, in daily life I generally use the
mm/dd/yy format. And then I started having to deal with computer files with
dates for names. The only way to get "chronological = alphabetical" is to do
it exactly opposite: yyyy-mm-dd.

On the other hand, because of the confusion internationally, genealogists
everywhere, who deal with records from all times and places, have
standardized dates this way: 20 Dec 2005. Day-month-year. Always four digits
for the year. (Well, to be picky, if you go back far enough you can end up
with 3-, 2-, or 1 digit years--or even B.C.) Always with the month spelled
out, not numbers. And even then you frequently have to specify what calendar
was in use when the record was made and adjust accordingly! This whole date
issue goes way, way back!

Standardization would be nice but I don't think it's going to happen any
time soon. (And even it does ever happen, there will always be older records
to deal with anyway...)

Carol
Seattle USA