 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010US Date Format and ISO 8601
Hello, Everyone: In the US, the format to express a date is to put the MONTH in the first place, then the DATE and finally the YEAR. In Europe, however, the order of MONTH and DATE are reversed. The two formats can cause confusions when written all-numerically, such as 02/04/2010. In some other parts of the world, the YEAR comes the first, and then the MONTH and then the DATE. Maybe computer scientists and mathematicians first realized the advantages of this logical, big- endian format, and as earl as 1988, the ISO 8601, an international standard covering the exchange of date and time-related data, was published (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO8601). According to this standard, the date February 14, 2010, for instance, is written as 2010-02-14, all-numeric. I suppose this can be understood correctly by people all over the world without any further explanation. In this computer age, this big-endian, all-numeric format has many advantages. For instance, when you write diaries/journals in your computer and name each file by the date using the above format, all the files list chronologically. In science, many data are closely related to time and therefore have been named by date (and/or time as well). And in the past, the 3- letter month names (jan, feb, etc.) and/or the all-numeric format [MM]- [DD]-[YYYY] have been used. And this has caused considerable, althougth resolvable, inconvenience in managing the data files. After all, all time-related records are organized according to YEAR, MONTH and DATE in that order, and we locate a historical material, such as The New York Times on 1944-06-06, we locate it in that order. I wish that we start to use the ISO 8601 standard, i.e., the all- numeric [YYYY]-[MM]-[DD] format in our daily life, in calendars, newspapers, magazines, TV, etc.. For now, we can at least use it in our personal life for its convenience. --Roland > Hello, Everyone: > > In the US, the format to express a date is to put the MONTH in the > first place, then the DATE and finally the YEAR. In Europe, however, > the order of MONTH and DATE are reversed. The two formats can cause > confusions when written all-numerically, such as 02/04/2010. We in America put the month first because one generally says February 14th 2010. so it gets written as 02/14/10. That the Europeans do it wrong is their problem. ;-) >> Hello, Everyone: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > so it gets written as 02/14/10. > That the Europeans do it wrong is their problem. ;-) Many people say "14th of February" though, at least here in Australia.  SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. >>> Hello, Everyone: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Many people say "14th of February" though, at least here in Australia. That is the result of all the blood rushing to yor head. >>>> Hello, Everyone: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > That is the result of all the blood rushing to yor head. You mean, the way it does on the fourth of July? SignatureMike. >>>>> Hello, Everyone: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You mean, the way it does on the fourth of July? For many Americans, "the fourth of July" means Independence Day, whereas "July 4" merely names the date that it happens to fall on. There is even a joke: "Do they have a fourth of July in Canada?" "Yes, it is the day after the third." Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: The human visual system is an efficient device for ignoring :|| ||: things. :|| Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:36:52 -0500 from Joe Fineman <joe_f@verizon.net>: > For many Americans, "the fourth of July" means Independence Day, > whereas "July 4" merely names the date that it happens to fall on. > There is even a joke: "Do they have a fourth of July in Canada?" > "Yes, it is the day after the third." They have July Fourth, they just celebrate it three days early. :-) (They celebrate Thanksgiving about six weeks early.) SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >>>>>> Hello, Everyone: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >There is even a joke: "Do they have a fourth of July in Canada?" >"Yes, it is the day after the third." I think most Americans would spell it, "the Fourth of July". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>>> Hello, Everyone: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I think most Americans would spell it, "the Fourth of July". "The Fourth of July" is the name of a holiday. July 4th is the date it falls on. Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:38:58 -0500 from Ray O'Hara <raymond- ohara@hotmail.com>: > "The Fourth of July" is the name of a holiday. > July 4th is the date it falls on. If I'm not mistaken, "Independence Day" is the name of the holiday. "The fourth of July" and "July 4th" are informal ways of referring to it. I agree that "the fourth of July" usually refers to the holiday and "July 4th" to the date, but I don't agree that it is 100% that way. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >>>>>>>> Hello, Everyone: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > "The Fourth of July" is the name of a holiday. >July 4th is the date it falls on. Yup. The F is capitalized. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > Many people say "14th of February" though, at least here in > Australia. Quite a few of us also say the dates this way round in the UK as well, including a variation omitting the "of". SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. >>> Hello, Everyone: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Many people say "14th of February" though, at least here in > Australia. That is possible, but slightly formal, in the U.S. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: The most exciting thing to say in science is not "Eureka!" :|| ||: but "That's funny". :|| >>> Hello, Everyone: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Many people say "14th of February" though, at least here in Australia. I've even heard louts on the radio mumbling about "the fourteen Febry". SignatureRob Bannister >> Hello, Everyone: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >2010. >so it gets written as 02/14/10. As in the Fourth of July? SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > As in the Fourth of July? Or, according to the other thread: July's Fourth SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Please use the Reply-To field for my email address, which is certain to remain valid for 2 weeks from the posting of this message. >> As in the Fourth of July? > > Or, according to the other thread: > > July's Fourth Nah, Gloria's. > >> Hello, Everyone: > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > As in the Fourth of July? Equally red-white-and-blue American is: 'Twas the eighteenth of April in seventy-five And hardly the man is now alive Who remembers that famous day and year. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email John Varela filted: >> > We in America put the month first because one generally says February 14th >> >2010. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >And hardly the man is now alive >Who remembers that famous day and year. I know I always have trouble when I tell people my birthday is 4-4...is that April the fourth, they ask, or the fourth of April?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > John Varela filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I know I always have trouble when I tell people my birthday is 4-4...is that > April the fourth, they ask, or the fourth of April?...r I bet you chose that date deliberately. SignatureRob Bannister >> > We in America put the month first because one generally says February 14th >> >2010. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >And hardly the man is now alive >Who remembers that famous day and year. That put me in mind of In 1492, just to see what he could see Columbus, an Italian, looked out across the sea He said, "Isabella, babe, the world is round And the USA's just a-waitin' to be found." Though of course it says nothing about months and days. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >> Hello, Everyone: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > so it gets written as 02/14/10. > That the Europeans do it wrong is their problem. ;-) The US military and Chicago University Press side with the Europeans. SignatureJames >The US military and Chicago University Press side with the Europeans. Um, that would be the (ObXThread) "University of Chicago Press". -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >> The US military and Chicago University Press side with the Europeans. > > Um, that would be the (ObXThread) "University of Chicago Press". Well spotted. SignatureJames >>> The US military and Chicago University Press side with the Europeans. >> >> Um, that would be the (ObXThread) "University of Chicago Press". > > Well spotted. How many divisions has the University of Chicago Press? SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >>>> The US military and Chicago University Press side with the Europeans. >>> Um, that would be the (ObXThread) "University of Chicago Press". >> Well spotted. > > How many divisions has the University of Chicago Press? Their Manual of Style start with the information that "A book usually consists of three major divisions." When you consider all the books they have published, that amounts to considerable fighting power. SignatureJames >>> Hello, Everyone: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >The US military and Chicago University Press side with the Europeans. So do the visa waiver forms and customs forms which are required to be filled in by all foreigners entering the US. I don't know if it's the same for customs forms for US citizens. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>The US military and Chicago University Press side with the Europeans. > > So do the visa waiver forms and customs forms which are required to > be filled in by all foreigners entering the US. I don't know if > it's the same for customs forms for US citizens. Many scientific publications in the U.S. specify dd Month yyyy (with the month spelled out), and that is what I use in snailmail correspondence (of which there is not much these days). For internal use in filenames etc., I use ddmmyy, where mm is ja fe mr ap my jn jl se oc nv de, and where the century begins on 01ja37 (my contribution to the Y2K problem -- if I live to be 100, I'll be sorry). I have written programs to do arithmetic on dates in that format. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: True friends stab you in the front. :|| > For internal > use in filenames etc., I use ddmmyy, where mm is ja fe mr ap my jn jl [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > --- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net I used to use a format for files similar to yours with the month spelled out in 3 letters. However, as the number of files accumulates, the sorting and managing become a nightmare. Now I use the format YYYY-MM-DD, YYYY_MM_DD or YYYYMMDD where the MONTH is numeric, and the MONTH and DATE use leading zeros if they are 1-digit. --Roland >> For internal >> use in filenames etc., I use ddmmyy, where mm is ja fe mr ap my jn jl [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the format YYYY-MM-DD, YYYY_MM_DD or YYYYMMDD where the MONTH is >numeric, and the MONTH and DATE use leading zeros if they are 1-digit. I use the last for directories in which I store digital photos. It makes them easier to find. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >Many scientific publications in the U.S. specify dd Month yyyy (with >the month spelled out), and that is what I use in snailmail Most newspapers, however, in Britain and South Africa at least, use the "American" format -- February 16, 2010. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >> Many scientific publications in the U.S. specify dd Month yyyy (with >> the month spelled out), and that is what I use in snailmail > > Most newspapers, however, in Britain and South Africa at least, use the > "American" format -- February 16, 2010. So does our local Murdoch newspaper, The Advertiser. SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. >> Hello, Everyone: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > so it gets written as 02/14/10. > That the Europeans do it wrong is their problem. ;-) More seriously, is there any evidence that one is more common than other in the spoken language, and is the usage regional? In the UK I believe it is normal to put the date before the month. T. >> "qquito" wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> formats can cause confusions when written all-numerically, such >>> as 02/04/2010. [...] > ... In the UK I believe it is normal to put the date before the > month. In these two random examples, *date* is misused for *day* (in my opinion and usage). Yes, I know, some dictionaries confusingly define _date_ also as "the *day* of the month," but I would never use "date" to mean "day." These are *dates*: 15 April 2010, 2/4/02, 8.IV.1936, etc. These are *days* (of the month): third, 10, 15th, 31st, etc. Nota bene: The "dd" or "DD" means "day," not "date." MMDDYYYY (month-DAY-year) is a "date." So qquito's the format to express a date is to put the MONTH in the first place, then the DATE and finally the YEAR. In Europe, however, the order of MONTH and DATE are reversed. should be: the format to express a date is to put the MONTH in the first place, then the *DAY* and finally the YEAR. In Europe, however, the order of MONTH and *DAY* are reversed. And Tom P's In the UK I believe it is normal to put the date before the month. should be: In the UK I believe it is normal to put the *day* before the month. Other languages don't confuse these two words: DAY DATE =============================== English ..... day/date .. date <---- confusing German ...... Tag ....... Datum Dutch ....... dag ....... datum Swedish ..... dag ....... datum French ...... jour ...... date Italian ..... giorno .... data Spanish ..... día ....... fecha Portuguese .. dia ....... data Have a good date. Signature~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ [...] > Have a good date. f.ck! This should have been "Have a nice date." > -- > ~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~ qquito filted: >Hello, Everyone: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >newspapers, magazines, TV, etc.. For now, we can at least use it in >our personal life for its convenience. I'm well acquainted with 8601 from the two years I spent preparing a suite of software for Y2K (internal dates were stored as binary "number of days since a standard zero point" but there were all those conversions to and from various external forms).... The greatest advantage of the ISO version is that entries will sort into proper chronological order without any special treatment that depends on the fact that they're dates.... For my personal use, I use a modified format that omits the delimiters...my binder full of recorded broadcasts from Taiwan Radio has filenames in the form "YYMMDD_HHMM.mp3" up until 2008, and "YYMMDD_HH00 MM SS.SSSSS.mp3" thereafter (the extraneous digits because I'm now letting the editing software name the individual files and the editing software doesn't allow any truncation)...I don't need four-digit years because I didn't start collecting them until after the turn of the century....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? 14 Feb 2010 20:56:41 -0800 from R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>: > The greatest advantage of the ISO version is that entries will sort into proper > chronological order without any special treatment that depends on the fact that > they're dates.... I think that's a close second to this one: When you read 02.11.2010 you can't be sure whether it's 11 February or 2 November. When you read 2010-02-11 there is no doubt. I've been using ISO format consistently for about a decade now, and no one has ever questioned it or (as far as I'm aware) misinterpreted it. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... Stan wrote on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:58:21 -0500: > 14 Feb 2010 20:56:41 -0800 from R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>: >> The greatest advantage of the ISO version is that entries >> will sort into proper chronological order without any special >> treatment that depends on the fact that they're dates.... > I think that's a close second to this one: > When you read 02.11.2010 you can't be sure whether it's 11 > February or 2 November. When you read 2010-02-11 there is no > doubt. Am I missing something? How do you distinguish the meanings of "2010-02-11" and "2010-11-02"? SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not On 15 Feb 2010, James Silverton wrote > Stan wrote on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:58:21 -0500: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Am I missing something? How do you distinguish the meanings of > "2010-02-11" and "2010-11-02"? (My guess.) I suspect that once the year is placed in front, few people would expect to see the day next, before the month. 11-February-2010 and February-11-2010, when converted to numerals, are confusable, because both are commonly encountered sequences. Putting the year first is alien to both, so 2010-February-11 just seems a bit more likely than 2010-11-February, even when converted to numerals. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed HVS wrote on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:29:24 GMT: >> Stan wrote on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:58:21 -0500: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> Am I missing something? How do you distinguish the meanings >> of "2010-02-11" and "2010-11-02"? > (My guess.) > I suspect that once the year is placed in front, few people > would expect to see the day next, before the month. > 11-February-2010 and February-11-2010, when converted to > numerals, are confusable, because both are commonly > encountered sequences. > Putting the year first is alien to both, so 2010-February-11 > just seems a bit more likely than 2010-11-February, even when > converted to numerals. I don't find that too convincing. The old technique that I used in my schooldays of using lower case Roman for the month is more effective tho' probably, it might add complications to computer recognition. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > HVS wrote on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:29:24 GMT: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > schooldays of using lower case Roman for the month is more effective > tho' probably, it might add complications to computer recognition. I assumed that of course people would understand that you go from the largest unit to the smallest. And the first number is obviously the year, so the next must be the month and the last the day. Nice, simple, sorts nicely, and no one's had trouble with it since I started using Year-Month-Day at work. At least, no one's told me they find it confusing. I find trying to guess whether any given person is using the American or British system confusing, especially since so many people use only numbers, and don't put a handy note ("Day-Month-Year" or "Month-Day-Year)next to the numbers. SignatureCheryl James Silverton filted: > HVS wrote on Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:29:24 GMT: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >schooldays of using lower case Roman for the month is more effective >tho' probably, it might add complications to computer recognition. Not least of which is that it introduces a variable-length component...a competing standard I've seen would render the above example as "11feb2010", which makes it even clearer to anyone who's still uncertain that the string *is* in fact a date, while at the same time rendering delimiters unnecessary.... It's a bitch for sorting, though....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:29:24 GMT from HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>: > > Am I missing something? How do you distinguish the meanings of > > "2010-02-11" and "2010-11-02"? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > seems a bit more likely than 2010-11-February, even when converted > to numerals. Exactly! SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > On 15 Feb 2010, James Silverton wrote > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > seems a bit more likely than 2010-11-February, even when converted > to numerals. I think you're right that it's more likely. I tend to use the form "11 Feb 2010" (with the three-letter month, which I hope makes it unambiguous) when writing a check or in contexts mainly for human consumption, and ISO format elsewhere. On Feb 15, 6:58 pm, "sjdevn...@yahoo.com" <sjdevn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I tend to use the form "11 Feb 2010" (with the three-letter month, > which I hope makes it unambiguous) when writing a check or in contexts > mainly for human consumption, and ISO format elsewhere. I have been using the ISO format YYYY-MM-DD in writing checks for a few years, and there has not been any confusion. And today is 2010-02-15. --Roland >I tend to use the form "11 Feb 2010" (with the three-letter month, >which I hope makes it unambiguous) when writing a check or in contexts >mainly for human consumption, and ISO format elsewhere. Our cheque forms come pre-printed with the date as YYYY-MM-DD SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >> I tend to use the form "11 Feb 2010" (with the three-letter month, >> which I hope makes it unambiguous) when writing a check or in contexts >> mainly for human consumption, and ISO format elsewhere. > > Our cheque forms come pre-printed with the date as YYYY-MM-DD So do ours, now. I'd forgotten that. Well, they come with spaces for you to write in the date, in the YYYY MM DD format. SignatureCheryl > 14 Feb 2010 20:56:41 -0800 from R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>: >> The greatest advantage of the ISO version is that entries will sort into proper [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > When you read 02.11.2010 you can't be sure whether it's 11 February > or 2 November. When you read 2010-02-11 there is no doubt. Exactly why is there no doubt? Until I was exposed to Americans, I had no doubt that 02.11.2010 meant the second of November. I now have no reason to believe that somebody somewhere won't use 2010-02-11 for the second of November too. Perhaps you will claim that logic tells you that year-month-day is a progression from larger to smaller, but clearly logic does not tell Americans that day-month-year follows a similar, if different, pattern. To my mind, our only hope today is use letters for the months. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister filted: >Perhaps you will claim that logic tells you that year-month-day is a >progression from larger to smaller, but clearly logic does not tell >Americans that day-month-year follows a similar, if different, pattern. > >To my mind, our only hope today is use letters for the months. That's fine until you have to cross a language barrier...I have a bilingual calendar watch that somehow got stuck in Spanish mode...I had to keep reminding myself when I looked at it that "MAR 13" wasn't the thirteenth day of March but the thirteenth day of some unspecified month that just happened to fall on a Tuesday....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >> When you read 02.11.2010 you can't be sure whether it's 11 February >> or 2 November. When you read 2010-02-11 there is no doubt. > >Exactly why is there no doubt? Because Americans have never, ever, used a year-first format in the past, and only true geeks do so now. If you see an ISO 8601 date written by an American, you know that the writer was someone who actually (a) was familiar with, and (b) cared about using, that format. It used to be that the standard German and Scandinavian format, dd.mm.(yy)yy, was unambiguous, too, but then US-based graphic designers decided that the punctuation of dates was subject to their whims and started writing dates mm.dd.(yy)yy instead of the standard mm/dd/(yy)yy. (The Northern European format actually made sense, because in those languages, a trailing dot after a numeral was -- like the use of Roman numerals -- an indication of an ordinal rather than a cardinal, so you had a date "the ddth of the mmth of (the year) (yy)yy".) I doubt (although my intuition in these areas is often wrong) that Frank Stanton would have tolerated such a designer in his employ. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >>> When you read 02.11.2010 you can't be sure whether it's 11 February >>> or 2 November. When you read 2010-02-11 there is no doubt. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Because Americans have never, ever, used a year-first format in the >past, and only true geeks do so now. Those of us who keep image files on computers do. The file name I use for the first photo shot on February photos is 2010-02-14-0001 for the first photo shot on February 14, 2010. They sort right this way. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>[Stan Brown wrote:] >>>> When you read 02.11.2010 you can't be sure whether it's 11 February >>>> or 2 November. When you read 2010-02-11 there is no doubt. >>>[Robert Bannister wrote:] >>>Exactly why is there no doubt? >>[I wrote:] >>Because Americans have never, ever, used a year-first format in the >>past, and only true geeks do so now. >[Tony Cooper wrote:] >Those of us who keep image files on computers do. That does not contradict what I said. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 [why is 2000-02-03 unambiguous?] >>Because Americans have never, ever, used a year-first format in the >>past, and only true geeks do so now. > > Those of us who keep image files on computers do. (Those two sets overlap considerably.) > The file name I use for the first photo shot on February photos is > 2010-02-14-0001 for the first photo shot on February 14, 2010. They > sort right this way. So do I. I have a Perl script (available if anyone cares) that uses jhead to generate filenames based on the Exif timestamp. Consequently it drives me nuts when I'm merging holiday photos from other family members' cameras in with mine and someone's clock isn't set. SignatureCivilization is a race between catastrophe and education. [H G Wells] > [why is 2000-02-03 unambiguous?] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So do I. I have a Perl script (available if anyone cares) that uses > jhead to generate filenames based on the Exif timestamp. And sets the modifation timestamp on the file to match? That's what mine does. > Consequently it drives me nuts when I'm merging holiday photos from > other family members' cameras in with mine and someone's clock isn't > set. That's why I have another Perl script that adjusts the timestamps (and file name) by a set amount. Also fixes "Damn. Forgot to adjust the clock when we went on (or came back from) vacation." SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |He seems to be perceptive and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |effective because he states the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |obvious to people that don't seem |to see the obvious. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | Tony Cooper http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> So do I. I have a Perl script (available if anyone cares) that uses >> jhead to generate filenames based on the Exif timestamp. > > And sets the modifation timestamp on the file to match? That's what > mine does. Now you're just showing off. ;-) No, I'm happy with just the filenames. >> Consequently it drives me nuts when I'm merging holiday photos from >> other family members' cameras in with mine and someone's clock isn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > file name) by a set amount. Also fixes "Damn. Forgot to adjust the > clock when we went on (or came back from) vacation." The jhead program itself does that. -ta<+|-><timediff> Adjust time stored in the Exif header by h:mm backwards or forwards. Useful when having taken pictures with the wrong time set on the camera, such as after travelling across time zones, or when daylight savings time has changed. A set of thirty photos all stamped 2000-01-01 00:00:00 is a different can of worms. SignatureNobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. [Mencken] >>> So do I. I have a Perl script (available if anyone cares) that uses >>> jhead to generate filenames based on the Exif timestamp. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Now you're just showing off. ;-) No, I'm happy with just the > filenames. Maybe just a little. The reason that I can't just use the filenames is that the naming scheme I use also encodes the camera used (mine or my son's) and the sequence number according to the camera), with those two elements at the beginning (because the sequence number is the easiest way to refer to the picture and it would often be truncated out in narrow fields). So it wouldn't sort correctly with an alphabetic sort. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A specification which calls for 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |network-wide use of encryption, but Palo Alto, CA 94304 |invokes the Tooth Fairy to handle |key distribution, is a useless kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |farce. (650)857-7572 | Henry Spencer http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>: >I have a Perl script (available if anyone cares) that uses >jhead to generate filenames based on the Exif timestamp. > >Consequently it drives me nuts when I'm merging holiday photos from >other family members' cameras in with mine and someone's clock isn't >set. I use Adobe Photoshop Elements to organise photos. It doesn't matter what the pathname is, they're displayed chronologically by EXIF time (or, failing that, file time). Not only that, but APE can adjust the time of groups of photos to take care of the problem you describe. Working out exactly how *much* to adjust them by isn't always easy, though. An indexing program such as APE also allows me to retrieve photos based on tags indicating the person(s), place, event, etc. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>: >>I have a Perl script (available if anyone cares) that uses [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >An indexing program such as APE also allows me to retrieve photos based >on tags indicating the person(s), place, event, etc. I'm reading this thread with interest because I am so "in" to photography, but I really can't understand the comments about precision in file naming. Some of my photography is the usual family pix stuff, but the bulk of it is in the hobby area ranging from candid "street" photography to anything that looks like it would make a good composition. For the family pix, year-month-date is sufficient in by-year folders. The rest are stored in Adobe's Lightroom* program and retrieved by a keyword system, but also named in the year-month-day format. I have a second Lightroom catalog for old family scans, and that one is keyworded by subject(s) in the photo. I can't understand the need for knowing the exact time from the file name. (Although that is stored and viewable in the EXIF data of the RAW original) *A program that would handle Evan's need to know "Which camera?" because it will sort by camera body and/or lens used. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>: >>>I have a Perl script (available if anyone cares) that uses [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>take care of the problem you describe. Working out exactly how >>*much* to adjust them by isn't always easy, though. I may have to take a look. I'm currently using ACDSee, but it's far from perfect. I see that Photoshop Elements now claims to do face recognition. Do you know whether it does a decent job? >>An indexing program such as APE also allows me to retrieve photos >>based on tags indicating the person(s), place, event, etc. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > format. I have a second Lightroom catalog for old family scans, and > that one is keyworded by subject(s) in the photo. Somewhat more OT, but does anybody have a good solution for EXIF dates for scans of things where you don't know the exact day, and possibly can't get it closer than the year or even the decade? > I can't understand the need for knowing the exact time from the file > name. (Although that is stored and viewable in the EXIF data of the > RAW original) It's not so much exact time as sequence when lots of pictures are taken on the same day, especially when there's more than one event (or event component) on a given day. The sequence number does it for one camera, but when there are multiple ones and only one of them has its camera three hours off, it can cause problems. The other reason I want to keep information in file names (as opposed to hiding it in the EXIF data) is that several times I've run into tools that have "helpfully" removed the EXIF information from pictures or reset the date to the current date, and so it's useful to be able to go backwards from the name to the date. > *A program that would handle Evan's need to know "Which camera?" > because it will sort by camera body and/or lens used. My problem's actually the other way. I want to sort by time, regardless of the camera used. I should mention that I also want to be able to have the sort include video taken on the cameras, which, unfortunately, doesn't have EXIF info, so the name (and filesystem date) is all I have. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Now every hacker knows 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | That the secret to survivin' Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Is knowin' when the time is free | And what's the load and queue kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |'Cause everyone's a cruncher (650)857-7572 | And everyone's a user |And the best that you can hope for http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Is a crash when you're through >>>Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>: >>>>I have a Perl script (available if anyone cares) that uses [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >from perfect. I see that Photoshop Elements now claims to do face >recognition. Do you know whether it does a decent job? I have Photoshop Elements Version 5.0, which is far from the most current version. The only reason I have it is because my daughter uses it, and she sometimes has questions about editing technique and I will do a project and send her screen shots of the steps. I use Photoshop CS4 for editing my own stuff. I don't use the "Organizer" since I use Adobe's "Lightroom" for that function. >>>An indexing program such as APE also allows me to retrieve photos >>>based on tags indicating the person(s), place, event, etc. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >for scans of things where you don't know the exact day, and possibly >can't get it closer than the year or even the decade? EXIF data is captured in-camera. Scanners don't capture it. (You do create EXIF data, but the date and time is the date and time of when the scan is made.) There are programs that you can use to add or edit EXIF data to digital images on your computer, but *you* have to know what to add or to change. The only reason to add EXIF data to a scanned image is if the file name would be too long to contain all the data you want to record. >> I can't understand the need for knowing the exact time from the file >> name. (Although that is stored and viewable in the EXIF data of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >one camera, but when there are multiple ones and only one of them has >its camera three hours off, it can cause problems. I guess I haven't worked on a project where this has been that critical. I put together one file of all of the photographs taken on Thanksgiving* by my daughter, my son, and me; each with their own camera. I use a (free) program called FastStone** Image Viewer 4.0 that's an image viewer with other features - including bulk file re-naming - and drag-and-drop the images into the sequence I want and then re-name them (date and trailing number) so the trailing number puts them permanently in the right order. My sorting is by scene and not necessarily by time. *We spent Thanksgiving in North Carolina with another family on their farm, and there were other guests there and a lot of different activities. **FastStone = http://www.faststone.org/ SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>Not only that, but APE can adjust the time of groups of photos to >>>>take care of the problem you describe. Working out exactly how [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I have Photoshop Elements Version 5.0, which is far from the most > current version. The feature is called "new" with the current version, which is version 8. > The only reason I have it is because my daughter uses it, and she > sometimes has questions about editing technique and I will do a > project and send her screen shots of the steps. I use Photoshop CS4 > for editing my own stuff. I don't use the "Organizer" since I use > Adobe's "Lightroom" for that function. at $299, A bit pricy for me, since photography isn't a big hobby of mine. >>> I'm reading this thread with interest because I am so "in" to >>> photography, but I really can't understand the comments about [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > create EXIF data, but the date and time is the date and time of when > the scan is made.) Exactly. Not very useful for describing the photo. (And some editing software changes it to the date and time of the edit.) > There are programs that you can use to add or edit EXIF data to > digital images on your computer, but *you* have to know what to add > or to change. > > The only reason to add EXIF data to a scanned image is if the file > name would be too long to contain all the data you want to record. The reason to add EXIF data (at least an EXIF date) is to make it play nice with other photos in the collection when using photo organizer software. Unfortunately, the people who designed the format apparently didn't think about the problem of not knowing the exact time the photo was taken and require it to be specified down to the second, and organizer software will report it as though everything they're told to report is valid. >>> I can't understand the need for knowing the exact time from the file >>> name. (Although that is stored and viewable in the EXIF data of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I guess I haven't worked on a project where this has been that > critical. That may be the difference. I'm not thinking about projects. This is for long-term browsable mass storage. We print out a fraction, but even that's typically in batches that require us to go back over the last few months and pick out the ones we want to print. The reason that the scan-date question is coming up now is that we just had 5,000 old prints scanned, and I want to be able to merge them into the same store. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When correctly viewed, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Everything is lewd. Palo Alto, CA 94304 |I could tell you things | about Peter Pan, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |and the Wizard of Oz-- (650)857-7572 | there's a dirty old man! | Tom Lehrer http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com>: >>>>>Not only that, but APE can adjust the time of groups of photos to >>>>>take care of the problem you describe. Working out exactly how [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >The feature is called "new" with the current version, which is version >8. My mistake, sorry. Version 5, which I have, finds faces for you to recognise, but doesn't recognise them itself. >> The only reason I have it is because my daughter uses it, and she >> sometimes has questions about editing technique and I will do a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >at $299, A bit pricy for me, since photography isn't a big hobby of >mine. It's important to distinguish that product from Photoshop *Elements*, the only moderately cut-down version for a very cut-down price of about $79. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >>> I don't use the "Organizer" since I use >>> Adobe's "Lightroom" for that function. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the only moderately cut-down version for a very cut-down price of about >$79. I've used all three: Elements, Photoshop (full versions), and Lightroom. That "moderately" is a "YMMV" thing. Once you are experienced in Photoshop (full version) or Lightroom, you are much more than moderately restricted using Elements. I recommend Elements for people who want to do basic and basic-plus photo editing, but Elements is really for the snapshot shooter who takes family and vacation photographs. If you get serious about photography and going beyond family/vacation shots, though, the extra features of Photoshop and Lightroom start to be become essentials. Without layer masks, channels, and LAB mode, I'd feel very restricted. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>Not only that, but APE can adjust the time of groups of photos to >>>>>take care of the problem you describe. Working out exactly how [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >at $299, A bit pricy for me, since photography isn't a big hobby of >mine. Last week I was out at Sanford Marina on Lake Monroe taking some pictures and struck-up a conversation with a guy there. He was asking some questions about my camera and the programs I use to process the images. He had a $100 point-and-shoot camera, and commented about how much money I'd spent on my camera and my software. He was down here in his huge motor coach and towing a boat. He'll spend more money on upkeep of just that boat in the next 12 months than I have invested in my camera hobby. That's the American Way, though. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >That may be the difference. I'm not thinking about projects. This is >for long-term browsable mass storage. We print out a fraction, but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >just had 5,000 old prints scanned, and I want to be able to merge them >into the same store. I'm not trying to convince you to change anything. If it works for you, it works. I'm just sharing some other ways to accomplish the task that may - or may not - work better for you. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com>: >>>I use Adobe Photoshop Elements to organise photos. It doesn't matter >>>what the pathname is, they're displayed chronologically by EXIF time [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >from perfect. I see that Photoshop Elements now claims to do face >recognition. Do you know whether it does a decent job? I used the first version of APE to do face recognition, which is now quite old. It didn't do a good job, but then I didn't expect it to, given the nature of the pictures. I find that it's as quick for me to do apply tags manually as it is to check and correct the results of automatic tagging, so that's what I do. APE makes it easy. You can use control-click and shift-click to select a bunch of pictures, and drag a tag onto the group. Or you can control-click and shift-click to select a bunch of tags, and drag them onto a picture. Or both at the same time (multiple pictures, multiple tags, one drag). And you can navigate and scale the album while you're selecting. Of particular interest for navigation by date is the bar-chart across the top of the screen showing the number of photos in each month/year. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >> *A program that would handle Evan's need to know "Which camera?" >> because it will sort by camera body and/or lens used. > > My problem's actually the other way. I want to sort by time, > regardless of the camera used. That's what I do. My script has a -x option to stick names on the end, so `photofilename -x adam .JPG` does this: 20100124-115535-adam.jpg 20100124-115542-adam.jpg 20100124-121652-adam.jpg 20100124-121725-adam.jpg I copy various peoples' photos into their own subdirectories, run this with different -x values, and then merge. > I should mention that I also want to be able to have the sort > include video taken on the cameras, which, unfortunately, doesn't > have EXIF info, so the name (and filesystem date) is all I have. Now that's a problem I haven't figured out. Where do you get the time of the video from? The filesystem's datestamp of the file on the camera's memory card? SignatureNo right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution. I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be prevented. [Whitfield Diffie] >>> *A program that would handle Evan's need to know "Which camera?" >>> because it will sort by camera body and/or lens used. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I copy various peoples' photos into their own subdirectories, run this > with different -x values, and then merge. I think I tried it that way at first and found that that meant that under a thumbnail that would often be truncated so that all that was displayed was (at most) the date for all the pictures, which made it hard to say "I think number 121652 is the best of the group". >> I should mention that I also want to be able to have the sort >> include video taken on the cameras, which, unfortunately, doesn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > time of the video from? The filesystem's datestamp of the file on > the camera's memory card? Exactly. My script actually copies off the card and renames the file, putting it into the right Year/Month directory. So I have the cards timestamp available. > No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution. > I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be > prevented. [Whitfield Diffie] Actually, I'd say that it did, for at least some kinds of conversation, and that it's one of the reasons that the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble The way you prevented private conversations in those days was to declare any gatherings (of any size, especially if held in secret) you didn't like to be "unlawful assemblies". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Your claim might have more 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |credibility if you hadn't mispelled Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"inteligent" kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >I think I tried it that way at first and found that that meant that >under a thumbnail that would often be truncated so that all that was >displayed was (at most) the date for all the pictures, which made it >hard to say "I think number 121652 is the best of the group". I really recommend that (free) FastStone Viewer that I mentioned in an earlier post for this type of sorting. You can open a file, go through full-screen views of each photograph using the arrow keys, tag the ones that look good, and then view just the tagged photos. You can then put up two or more tagged photos side-by-side and remove the tag from the least desirable. Repeat until you've culled it down to the best of the group. I do this and then copy the "keepers" into a new file folder that I'll use to print from or to send out for prints. Then I remove all tags. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> I should mention that I also want to be able to have the sort >>> include video taken on the cameras, which, unfortunately, doesn't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > putting it into the right Year/Month directory. So I have the cards > timestamp available. I recently figured out that one of our cameras (as it happens, the only one normally used for videos) produces two files on the card for each video: 47M MVI_1667.AVI 11K MVI_1667.THM and the second one is a thumbnail jpeg file with a full set of Exif information, including the timestamp. So I should be able to produce a script that finds pairs of files by name and extension, and renames both according to the Exif timestamp. Thanks for the inspiration. SignatureThe three-martini lunch is the epitome of American efficiency. Where else can you get an earful, a bellyful and a snootful at the same time? [Gerald Ford, 1978] > Those of us who keep image files on computers do. The file name I use > for the first photo shot on February photos is 2010-02-14-0001 for the > first photo shot on February 14, 2010. They sort right this way. I do the same thing, but a little more compactly: YYYYMMDD dd + a description Occasionally I take more than 99 photos in one day; when that happens, the number of d's is easily increased. SignatureJohn Varela >> Those of us who keep image files on computers do. The file name I use >> for the first photo shot on February photos is 2010-02-14-0001 for the >> first photo shot on February 14, 2010. They sort right this way. > >I do the same thing, but a little more compactly: YYYYMMDD dd + a >description I upload in Bridge (part of Adobe Photoshop CS4), and Bridge assigns the file number that way (except for the description). From there I view the files in the FastStone Image Viewer, delete the bad ones, and re-number the files using the hyphens. I find the hyphenated form easier to read. >Occasionally I take more than 99 photos in one day; when that >happens, the number of d's is easily increased. Thirty-seven this afternoon, but only two keepers. Over 150 Saturday at a Tea Party Rally and Straw Poll Saturday. This is a candidate being interviewed by a TV channel in front of his own poster: http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/2010-02-130002/7881871 58_pnXVe-XL.jpg and here's a couple of ladies being warned about the dangers of liberalism: http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/2010-02-130006/7881876 15_VVWei-XL.jpg SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> Those of us who keep image files on computers do. The file name I use >> for the first photo shot on February photos is 2010-02-14-0001 for the >> first photo shot on February 14, 2010. They sort right this way. > >I do the same thing, but a little more compactly: YYYYMMDD dd + a >description I just use the standard DCIM image numbers. If I need to know exactly when a photo was taken, it's right there in the EXIF data (and from there it ends up in my index.xml file), and since the numbers are sequential they're easy to use when communicating with other people (friends, Web site visitors, potential licensees) than timestamps. For my audio files, I just use UUIDs, which are downright unfriendly but easy to generate and discourage "poking around" in the URL space. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>: >>> When you read 02.11.2010 you can't be sure whether it's 11 February >>> or 2 November. When you read 2010-02-11 there is no doubt. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Because Americans have never, ever, used a year-first format in the >past, Yes, if you know that, there is no doubt. But not everyone knows that. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Garrett Wollman <wollman@bimajority.org>: >>>> When you read 02.11.2010 you can't be sure whether it's 11 February [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes, if you know that, there is no doubt. But not everyone knows that. And people move around so much, too. So you might have an American who was raised in another country and still uses that format, just as you might have someone from England who was born and raised in the US. People don't always use the date format you'd expect based on where they have just come from. Maybe that issue is more typical of Canada than other countries, because we're often partway between the US and UK in usage, and individual Canadians don't always agree on which parts are to be borrowed from the US and which from the UK. SignatureCheryl > To my mind, our only hope today is use letters for the months. The Russians, IIRC, use Roman numerals for the month, so that 4 July 2010 comes out 4 VI 2010. This meant that V & I had to be on Russian typewriters, tho they do not occur in the Russian alphabet. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: It requires a penetrating eye to discern a fool through the :|| ||: disguises of gayety and good breeding. :|| >> To my mind, our only hope today is use letters for the months. > > The Russians, IIRC, use Roman numerals for the month, so that 4 July > 2010 comes out 4 VI 2010. This meant that V & I had to be on Russian > typewriters, tho they do not occur in the Russian alphabet. Actually, the character "I" did exist on Russian typewriter keyboards prior to 1918, but a spelling reform did away with that letter and it is now completely supplanted by "И". The character "V", however, has never existed on any Russian keyboard. Russians may use Roman numerals to indicate dates in handwriting, but not in typing or word processing. Signaturealan >>> To my mind, our only hope today is use letters for the months. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > may use Roman numerals to indicate dates in handwriting, but not in > typing or word processing. If you say so. I can't remember where I learned what I wrote, and have no idea how I could look it up. Actually, the prerevolutionary alphabet also contained a letter ("izhitsa") that looked like V with a hook on the right. I have seen Roman numerals typed using that, so perhaps, on some Soviet typewriters, it survived as well as the I. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Life makes sense backward, but must be lived forward. :|| >>>> To my mind, our only hope today is use letters for the months. >>> The Russians, IIRC, use Roman numerals for the month, so that 4 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Roman numerals typed using that, so perhaps, on some Soviet > typewriters, it survived as well as the I. It's in Unicode: Ѵ along with some other beautiful letters: Ҕ Ѽ Ѡ Ѥ Ѩ Ѧ Ѯ Ѭ Ѻ Ҧ Ҩ SignatureJames >>>> To my mind, our only hope today is use letters for the months. >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Roman numerals typed using that, so perhaps, on some Soviet > typewriters, it survived as well as the I. The izhitsa " Ѵ " _may_ have survived on _some_ Russian typewriters, but I doubt it. It was pretty much phased out in favor of the " и " by the time typewriters were manufactured. I have seen it used in books in place of the "V" for Roman numeral purposes, but never on a typewriter keyboard. Here is a pic of three pre-Revolutionary Russian typewriter keyboards: http://gmzzbq.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p9Ha2PmNII9cRqMCQJXfcy9TWrEFhVXxqmiKvriO5W _XrBfUR9H-1UQw5_UDiIkOvwBDGuqR-h-R59ynz9tsuyRRghCjKdaa3/old%20russian%20keyboard s.jpg Since you say you've actually seen a typed " Ѵ ", I'm keeping an open mind . . . > The izhitsa " Ѵ " _may_ have survived on _some_ Russian typewriters, > but I doubt it. It was pretty much phased out in favor of the " и " [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Since you say you've actually seen a typed " Ѵ ", I'm keeping an > open mind . . . Very likely I saw it in a book & misremembered it. So izhitsa was on the way out even before the revolution! Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Most of our bridges now are over other roads. :|| >>>>> To my mind, our only hope today is use letters for the months. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Since you say you've actually seen a typed " Ѵ ", I'm keeping an open > mind . . . What interested me about those keyboards was the position of ц and э, both of which now appear, as one would expect, among the other letters. I was particularly surprised that ц was stuck up among the numbers, as it is a fairly common letter. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>> To my mind, our only hope today is use letters for the months. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > particularly surprised that ц was stuck up among the numbers, as it is a > fairly common letter. I suspect they may have been initially constrained by existing configuration of the mechanical keyboards, which were US- or European-designed and which didn't allow for the 35 pre-Revolutionary letters to be neatly consolidated on 3 rows, so a couple letters had to end up on the top row. P.S. I thought that " ц " was fairly common as well, but it turns out that it ranks near the bottom in terms of frequency ---- 30 out of 33 letters currently used. ( "э" was only slightly more frequent at 28 out of 33) http://www.bckelk.ukfsn.org/words/etaoin.html >>>>>>> To my mind, our only hope today is use letters for the months. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > http://www.bckelk.ukfsn.org/words/etaoin.html ** correction: it's the other way around: " ц " ranks 28, and "э" ranks 30 . . . >>>>>>>> To my mind, our only hope today is use letters for the months. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > ** correction: it's the other way around: " ц " ranks 28, and "э" ranks > 30 . . . It's still surprising. Perhaps it was getting rid of Tsar that did it. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>>>>> To my mind, our only hope today is use letters for the months. >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > It's still surprising. Perhaps it was getting rid of Tsar that did it. Getting rid of the Tsar could have been a serious blow to " ц ", but seemingly endless writings that followed on the topic of "социализм" ensured that its ranking slipped no lower . . . ;-) >> To my mind, our only hope today is use letters for the months. > > The Russians, IIRC, use Roman numerals for the month, so that 4 July > 2010 comes out 4 VI 2010. July comes early this year? > This meant that V & I had to be on Russian > typewriters, tho they do not occur in the Russian alphabet. SignatureSkitt (AmE) Skitt filted: >> The Russians, IIRC, use Roman numerals for the month, so that 4 July >> 2010 comes out 4 VI 2010. > >July comes early this year? Zero-based indexing, innit?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Skitt filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Zero-based indexing, innit?...r The Romans didn't have a zero symbol. That's why they couldn't make the leap to the programmable abacus. SignatureLeila: "I don't think he knows." Agent Rogersz: "Increase the voltage." Leila: "What if he's innocent?" Agent Rogersz: "No one is innocent. Proceed" (Cox 1984) > Skitt filted: >>> The Russians, IIRC, use Roman numerals for the month, so that 4 July >>> 2010 comes out 4 VI 2010. >> July comes early this year? > > Zero-based indexing, innit?...r That didn't happen until the Romans started using the programming language "Centum". SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> The Russians, IIRC, use Roman numerals for the month, so that 4 >> July 2010 comes out 4 VI 2010. > > July comes early this year? It can only get worse. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: The function of economic forecasting is to make astrology :|| ||: look good. :|| >> To my mind, our only hope today is use letters for the months. > >The Russians, IIRC, use Roman numerals for the month, so that 4 July >2010 comes out 4 VI 2010. This meant that V & I had to be on Russian >typewriters, tho they do not occur in the Russian alphabet. Oy! SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > 14 Feb 2010 20:56:41 -0800 from R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>: >> The greatest advantage of the ISO version is that entries will sort into proper [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > When you read 02.11.2010 you can't be sure whether it's 11 February > or 2 November. When you read 2010-02-11 there is no doubt. There's a very slight chance that you can convince a majority of Americans to abandon middle-endian date format. There's almost no chance at all of getting them to give up two-digit year numbers. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:46:51 +1100 from Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep>: > There's a very slight chance that you can convince a majority of > Americans to abandon middle-endian date format. There's almost no chance > at all of getting them to give up two-digit year numbers. And yet we did, in writing checks. Checks used to come preprinted with ________________19___ in the date field, and now it's just a blank. Of course, checks themselves are obsolescent. :-) SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... Stan wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:52:00 -0500: > Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:46:51 +1100 from Peter Moylan > <gro.nalyomp@retep>: >> There's a very slight chance that you can convince a majority >> of Americans to abandon middle-endian date format. There's >> almost no chance at all of getting them to give up two-digit >> year numbers. > And yet we did, in writing checks. Checks used to come > preprinted with ________________19___ in the date field, and > now it's just a blank. > Of course, checks themselves are obsolescent. :-) Yes, I'll agree that checks are *obsolescent* but will not be obsolete until all businesses accept electronic payment and banks allow the transmission of information that various people ask for. You still see "Please include the statement with the payment" and things like that. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Stan wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 07:52:00 -0500: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > transmission of information that various people ask for. You still see > "Please include the statement with the payment" and things like that. What world is this in? What I see are a variety of payment options. SignatureRob Bannister > Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:46:51 +1100 from Peter Moylan > <gro.nalyomp@retep>: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with ________________19___ in the date field, and now it's just a > blank. Some are, some aren't. The ones at http://www.walmartchecks.com/line.aspx?lineid=53 all seem to have the "20" on them, as do some of the ones at http://secure.checksinthemail.com/ Back in the late '90s, it was reasonable to drop the pre-printed century, as people could expect to still be using the same batch of checks when the century rolled over, but few people now will expect to still be writing checks in 2100 on batches they buy today (or at all, for that matter). So I suspect that including it will go back to being the default. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I may digress momentarily from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |the mainstream of this evening's Palo Alto, CA 94304 |symposium, I'd like to sing a song |which is completely pointless. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Tom Lehrer (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:46:51 +1100 from Peter Moylan ><gro.nalyomp@retep>: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Of course, checks themselves are obsolescent. :-) Only in Microsoft. > The greatest advantage of the ISO version is that entries will sort into proper > chronological order without any special treatment that depends on the fact that > they're dates.... You beat me to making that point, but I did find this question from Verity Stob's "How Friendly Is Your Software?" quiz (from 1988): 3. Your program needs to know today's date. Does it a. Check for the existence of a battery-backed BIOS accessible clock, and only trouble the operator if there isn't one? b. Always prompt using the correct date format as determined by an MS-DOS Int 21h call function? c. Always prompt in American (mm/dd/yy) format, because let's face it that's where the money is? d. Always prompt in Japanese (yyyy/mm/dd) format, because it's easier to code a date-sort that way? e. Always assume the date is 1/1/80? SignatureA: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? >Hello, Everyone: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >2010-02-14, all-numeric. I suppose this can be understood correctly by >people all over the world without any further explanation. It's a good deal older than that in principle. Befor 1988 it would have been written with spaces instead of hyphens 2010 02 14. In 1988 hyphens were added. It's been the official form in South Africa for numerical dates since 1972. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk qquito <qquito@hotmail.com>: >I wish that we start to use the ISO 8601 standard, i.e., the all- >numeric [YYYY]-[MM]-[DD] format in our daily life, in calendars, >newspapers, magazines, TV, etc.. For now, we can at least use it in >our personal life for its convenience. Do you mean just in writing, or in speech as well? With or without the leading zeroes? SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > ...... > Do you mean just in writing, or in speech as well? With or without the > leading zeroes? > > Mike Barnes > Cheshire, England To be consistent with the writing, we can say, for example, "Twenty Ten, February the Fifteenth" for 2010-02-15 in speech. The leading zero as in "02" makes the length for all dates the same and convenient for file management. --Roland |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.