On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 15:00, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2003-11-07 19:27:18 + Alexander Winston
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > almost all professionally written works follow this style: "January 1,
> > 2004." Are there objections to the latter?
>
> Yes. I think it should be "1st January 2004" or
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-07 20:00]:
> Having month-day-year order really makes no sense. I have not heard of
> this "debian-www style guide" before. Where is it?
in webwml cvs in english/template/debian/ctime.wml
HTH & HAND,
Alfie
--
"Wer sich die Netiquette ansieht, wird festste
On 2003-11-07 20:03:45 + Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Might it be that one is the british style of writing the date, and the
other one is american style?
No. "British" style is "1st January 2004" according to me and
\usepackage[british]{babel} ;-)
* Alexander Winston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-07 14:27]:
> It seems that the de facto "debian-www style guide" stipulates that
> dates be written in the following form: "January 1st, 2004." However,
> almost all professionally written works follow this style: "January 1,
> 2004." Are there objec
On 2003-11-07 19:27:18 + Alexander Winston
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
almost all professionally written works follow this style: "January 1,
2004." Are there objections to the latter?
Yes. I think it should be "1st January 2004" or "2004, January 1".
Having month-day-year order really ma
It seems that the de facto "debian-www style guide" stipulates that
dates be written in the following form: "January 1st, 2004." However,
almost all professionally written works follow this style: "January 1,
2004." Are there objections to the latter?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitall
6 matches
Mail list logo
