[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (meteorobs) Observation Report 1/31/00|1/32/00
True..dot it's not Jan. 01, but neither is it Jan. 32 or Feb. 0. My assumption
is that folks using the double-date convention would assume the rollover of
the month. If that is ambiguous, then I would prefer Jan. 31/Feb 1.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malcolm J Currie" <mjc@jach.hawaiidot edu>
To: "Meteor Observing List" <meteorobs@jovian.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Observation Report 1/31/00|1/32/00
Mark Davis wrote:
> The double-date format is fine....but you should list it as Jan. 31/01.
I disagree. It's not Jan. 01. The Jan. 31/32 convention has been
used for many years, at least 30 to my knowledge. You find dates like
Jan. 0 in ephemerides, so Feb. 0/1 is the alternative.
> 1/31/00|1/32/00
Yuccck!
No I'm not trying to be a surrogate George Zay. (-:
Malcolm
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html
To UNSUBSCRIBE from the 'meteorobs' email list, use the Web form at:
http://www.tiacdot net/users/lewkaren/meteorobs/subscribe.html
Follow-Ups:
References: