On 3 April 2011 19:06, Scott Ferguson <prettyfly.producti...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 03/04/11 16:54, Lisi wrote: > > On Sunday 03 April 2011 01:20:10 Scott Ferguson wrote: > >> I suspect Liam's response was made in jest :-) > > > > I'm sure it was - and a successful jest. But mine was not. In that > case, > > context made the date's form redundant, but it _is_ a problem. Not > major > > one, a very minor one. But a problem - and one with a very easy > solution. I > > prefer the 11-04-01 (or 2011-04-01) > > Either of those options works for me. > > > solution to the one I myself offered, > > because month names in a foreign language (and for many here English is a > > foreign language), whilst certainly unambiguous, may be confusing. > > > <snip> The logical progression, in the English language and not the American dialect, is 'day' of the 'month' of the specified 'year'. dd/mm/yy. This is obvious. Anything else is the calender equivalent of top-posting. Thanking you, for your time and attention to this matter. Regards, Weaver. -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Lucius Annæus Seneca. Terrorism, the new religion.
