Hoi,
I have some idea why standards exist and ambiguity is not what results
from proper localisation. When you see a date in the format that YOU are
used to, there will not be any ambiguity whereas showing it in a
particular date format can bring its own confusion.
As to there being no suggestion to making information public, I would
hope not. When you only show information that is relevant in a context,
you hide much data and consequently it will be less insecure. Given that
this is not send using https, it is best to have as little go over a
line as necessary.
Thanks,
GerardM
Ray Saintonge wrote:
You seem to be missing the point about why
international standards
exist in the first place. They protect against ambiguity.
There was absolutely no suggestion in there that she wanted to make
any of this information public.
Ec
GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> It is therefore NOT truly localised, when it is truly localised it is
> shown to you in a format that makes sense to the locale that can be
> associated with you. A date format can be shown differently within
> one language depending on the locale. When you insist on an ISO format
> you in essence discriminate against a language that uses another date
> format if only because it uses different characters
>
> Then again showing the checkuser log indiscrimately is in my opinion
> not such a great idea. Yes, it is apparantly a central log..
>
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> On 1/12/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 1/12/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The term is "localised" meaning that you want to see them according
to
>>> what is usual in your locale.
>>>
>> No, I'd prefer that they be displayed in the ISO international date
>> format so that they are NOT localized. Right now they're in the local
>> language of the project that checkuser is run from, and as I don't
>> read Arabic or Polish, it makes reading the log occasionally
>> confusing.