Difference between revisions of "Talk:News and Projects"
From CPCWiki - THE Amstrad CPC encyclopedia!
m |
m |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:Wow, David, so glad to see you here... By the way, I'm the one your old 464 with the 6128 ROMS went to... Could never thank you enough. Please do register! | :Wow, David, so glad to see you here... By the way, I'm the one your old 464 with the 6128 ROMS went to... Could never thank you enough. Please do register! | ||
:Anyhow, I'm not sure I'm getting the distinction - it's a very fine one, between YYYY-MM-DD and DD-MM-YYYY, or am I missing something? I'd instictively go for YYYY-MM-DD because it's great for filename archiving etc, but I'm not sure about such practicality here? [[User:Gryzor|Gryzor]] 16:22, 16 September 2006 (CEST) | :Anyhow, I'm not sure I'm getting the distinction - it's a very fine one, between YYYY-MM-DD and DD-MM-YYYY, or am I missing something? I'd instictively go for YYYY-MM-DD because it's great for filename archiving etc, but I'm not sure about such practicality here? [[User:Gryzor|Gryzor]] 16:22, 16 September 2006 (CEST) | ||
| + | ::Ahhh I see what you mean - just read your WACCI/csa8 meeting entry; but, living in Europe (the vast majority of us anyway), we're all used to the DD-MM-YYYY convention - only the Americans use the MM-DD-YYYY anomaly, isn't it so? [[User:Gryzor|Gryzor]] 16:24, 16 September 2006 (CEST) | ||
Latest revision as of 10:24, 16 September 2006
Please have a look at WikiNews, how news are managed. I tried to do it here in the same way. Would be cool, if we could do it in this way every time in the future. -- Prodatron 01:57, 28 August 2006 (CEST)
We really should use YYYY-MM-DD format dates rather than confusing users with what might be DD-MM-YYYY or MM-DD-YYYY -- David Cantrell, 2006-09-15
- Wow, David, so glad to see you here... By the way, I'm the one your old 464 with the 6128 ROMS went to... Could never thank you enough. Please do register!
- Anyhow, I'm not sure I'm getting the distinction - it's a very fine one, between YYYY-MM-DD and DD-MM-YYYY, or am I missing something? I'd instictively go for YYYY-MM-DD because it's great for filename archiving etc, but I'm not sure about such practicality here? Gryzor 16:22, 16 September 2006 (CEST)
- Ahhh I see what you mean - just read your WACCI/csa8 meeting entry; but, living in Europe (the vast majority of us anyway), we're all used to the DD-MM-YYYY convention - only the Americans use the MM-DD-YYYY anomaly, isn't it so? Gryzor 16:24, 16 September 2006 (CEST)
