OT: Question about Office 2013

[Mike Barnes]

Thanks for the follow-up. I think I see where we parted ways. You seem to be
saying that Y2K was a sorting problem, while in my opinion that was the
least of it.

But it was still *part* of it, and I don't see anyone implying any more
than that. You wrote "it wouldn't have created a Y2K problem", but
clearly it would - just not a very big one.

 

[Peter Taylor]

I don't cold call clients. They email me and Outlook will automatically
switch to plain text if it receives a plain text message. Out of 100
emails, maybe one is in plain text. I get a lot of HTML messages from
Samsung and iPhones.


See above.

I wonder why Stan is ignoring this post.

 

[Mike Barnes]

I don't cold call clients.

Obviously not, because that's not what a cold call is.

 

[Peter Taylor]

Obviously not, because that's not what a cold call is.

You knew what I meant, or did you?

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:31:35 -0500, "Chris S." <cside38

He is now reduced to calling me names. I'm through with him.

Wow, it took him longer than usual for him to resort to name calling.
His typical pattern has that happen within 2 days and 10 posts. Of
course, he was belittling you all along the way without actually
calling you names, amiright?

 

[Chris S.]

Wow, it took him longer than usual for him to resort to name calling.
His typical pattern has that happen within 2 days and 10 posts. Of
course, he was belittling you all along the way without actually
calling you names, amiright?

Zaphod

Yes, I know...

A Troll with a modicum of technological knowledge.

Chris

 

[Wolf K]

Citation, please?

YYYY-MM-DD is ISO 8601.

Well, since dd-mm-yy ( or -yyyy) was an acceptable alternative in
Austria when I was a boy, I assume it would be offered as an ISO
alternative, too. Seems I was wrong. No problem.

 

[Mike Barnes]

You knew what I meant, or did you?

No, I didn't. AAMOI what did you mean?

 

[Char Jackson]

But it was still *part* of it, and I don't see anyone implying any more
than that. You wrote "it wouldn't have created a Y2K problem", but
clearly it would - just not a very big one.

Referring to a sorting problem as a Y2K problem is a stretch to me, but
carry on.

 

[Peter Taylor]

No, I didn't. AAMOI what did you mean?

Sorry, I assumed you could handle logic. Does "unsolicited email" work
better for you?

 

[Ken Blake]

On 2/24/2013 10:20 PM, Stan Brown wrote:


Well, since dd-mm-yy ( or -yyyy) was an acceptable alternative in
Austria when I was a boy, I assume it would be offered as an ISO
alternative, too. Seems I was wrong. No problem.

Leaving aside any question of standards or acceptable alternatives, as
far as I'm concerned, we should all use YYYY-MM-DD because it's the
only format that's sortable.

 

[Mike Barnes]

Sorry, I assumed you could handle logic.

I can, but I'm not a mind reader.

Does "unsolicited email" work better for you?

If that's what you're saying you meant, yes. So you send e-mails to your
clients only if they've asked you to. You've said nothing about what you
send to those who are not clients.

 

[Peter Taylor]

I can, but I'm not a mind reader.


If that's what you're saying you meant, yes. So you send e-mails to your
clients only if they've asked you to. You've said nothing about what you
send to those who are not clients.

Yes, I have, in another post. I use plain text for personal emails.

 

[Wolf K]

Leaving aside any question of standards or acceptable alternatives, as
far as I'm concerned, we should all use YYYY-MM-DD because it's the
only format that's sortable.

Agreed, and except when dating snail mail, that's what I use.

 

[Char Jackson]

Leaving aside any question of standards or acceptable alternatives, as
far as I'm concerned, we should all use YYYY-MM-DD because it's the
only format that's sortable.

Only if the only sorting option available is an alpha sort and it can only
be applied to the filename, but we don't live in a world like that, do we?

I know what you meant, but what you said is clearly untrue. Any date format
that you can think of, (and document!), is then sortable. Perhaps not by a
simple alpha sort, which I assume is what you meant, but's that's by far not
the only sorting method available.

In a previous life, one of my tasks was to take data files from different
sources, each containing millions of customer records, and normalize the
data. That meant recognizing all the different ways that phone numbers can
be written, the different ways that a state can be referred to, (fully
spelled out or abbreviated), and of course all the ways that dates can be
written. Months that are written fully, as in January, February, and so on,
can be easily sorted, just as they can if they're written as a 3-character
abbreviation or a 2-character (JA, FE, MA, AP, MY, etc.), or as a series of
numbers. Years written as 2 digits were converted to 4 digits, etc. None of
it was rocket science.

 

[Mike Barnes]

Only if the only sorting option available is an alpha sort and it can only
be applied to the filename, but we don't live in a world like that, do we?

I know what you meant, but what you said is clearly untrue. Any date format
that you can think of, (and document!), is then sortable. Perhaps not by a
simple alpha sort, which I assume is what you meant, but's that's by far not
the only sorting method available.

In a previous life, one of my tasks was to take data files from different
sources, each containing millions of customer records, and normalize the
data. That meant recognizing all the different ways that phone numbers can
be written, the different ways that a state can be referred to, (fully
spelled out or abbreviated), and of course all the ways that dates can be
written. Months that are written fully, as in January, February, and so on,
can be easily sorted, just as they can if they're written as a 3-character
abbreviation or a 2-character (JA, FE, MA, AP, MY, etc.), or as a series of
numbers. Years written as 2 digits were converted to 4 digits, etc. None of
it was rocket science.

For that job the context presumably informed you that the characters
were intended to represent a date. That's a luxury that's not available
to (for instance) file manager software sorting by file name, where only
a *part* of *some* names might be a date, and possibly a partial date
(e.g. month and year) at that, and possibly not in English.

 

[Char Jackson]

For that job the context presumably informed you that the characters
were intended to represent a date. That's a luxury that's not available
to (for instance) file manager software sorting by file name, where only
a *part* of *some* names might be a date, and possibly a partial date
(e.g. month and year) at that, and possibly not in English.

I haven't seen a Windows Explorer version that's limited to sorting by
filename.

Anyway, this is silly and getting more silly, so go ahead and end it,
please.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Referring to a sorting problem as a Y2K problem is a stretch to me, but
carry on.

It's also a stretch to me.

The real problem at the end of the last century was ambiguity, as you
already have said.

But by now everyone in this thread is apparently out of sorts on this
issue.

 

[Char Jackson]

It's also a stretch to me.

The real problem at the end of the last century was ambiguity, as you
already have said.

But by now everyone in this thread is apparently out of sorts on this
issue.

We dig in our heels and defend our positions; it's what we do.
Thanks for posting.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

We dig in our heels and defend our positions; it's what we do.
Thanks for posting.

And I make puns - it's what I do

Or perhaps :-( would have been more appropriate


And of course, sorting wrong is an inconvenience in many cases. No
argument there.