|
Size: 1505
Comment: Fixed a link with   in it and removed some unnecessary elsewhere.
|
← Revision 9 as of 2008-07-04 12:12:03 ⇥
Size: 2060
Comment: Migrated to Confluence 4.0
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| #pragma page-filename DEV/versions/14352458 | #pragma page-filename DEV/versions/3833880 |
| Line 5: | Line 5: |
| Line 7: | Line 8: |
| The current stable GNU Mailman version is2.1.10, released on21-Apr-2008*. ( [[http://www.list.org/]] ) | The current stable GNU Mailman version is2.1.10, released on'''21-Apr-2008'''. ( [[http://www.list.org/|http://www.list.org/]] ) |
| Line 9: | Line 10: |
| '''28 Apr''' ( [[http://wiki.list.org/dashboard.action]] ) | '''28 Apr''' ( [[http://wiki.list.org/dashboard.action|http://wiki.list.org/dashboard.action]] ) |
| Line 11: | Line 12: |
| '''2008/04/10''' in url ( [[http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/2008/04/10/Mailman+3.0+alpha+1+released]] ) | '''2008/04/10''' in url ( [[http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/2008/04/10/Mailman+3.0+alpha+1+released|http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/2008/04/10/Mailman+3.0+alpha+1+released]] ) |
| Line 13: | Line 14: |
| '''Apr 10, 2008''' in text ( [[http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/2008/04/10/Mailman+3.0+alpha+1+released]] ) | '''Apr 10, 2008''' in text ( [[http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/2008/04/10/Mailman+3.0+alpha+1+released|http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/2008/04/10/Mailman+3.0+alpha+1+released]] ) |
| Line 15: | Line 16: |
| '''September 12, 2007''' [[http://www.list.org/mailman-member/index.html]] | '''September 12, 2007''' [[http://www.list.org/mailman-member/index.html|http://www.list.org/mailman-member/index.html]] |
| Line 18: | Line 19: |
| Instead of | |
| Line 20: | Line 20: |
| [[http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-October/002263.html]] | Instead of [[http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-October/002263.html|http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-October/002263.html]] |
| Line 24: | Line 26: |
| [[http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-10/002263.html]] | [[http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-10/002263.html|http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-10/002263.html]] |
| Line 28: | Line 30: |
| [[http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-10-30/002263.html]] | [[http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-10-30/002263.html|http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-10-30/002263.html]] |
| Line 30: | Line 32: |
| other: '''April 2024''' !!! [[http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/]] | other: '''April 2024''' !!! [[http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/|http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/]] |
| Line 33: | Line 35: |
| Line 35: | Line 38: |
| [[http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-10-30T18:12:14]] | [[http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-10-30T18:12:14|http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-10-30T18:12:14]] |
It would be nice if Mailman, especially the pipermail archives, can use the international ISO 8601 date format. Also the website could use that throughout. Currently there is a mixture of different date formats.
List.org website
list.org uses different date formats
The current stable GNU Mailman version is2.1.10, released on21-Apr-2008. ( http://www.list.org/ )
28 Apr ( http://wiki.list.org/dashboard.action )
2008/04/10 in url ( http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/2008/04/10/Mailman+3.0+alpha+1+released )
Apr 10, 2008 in text ( http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/2008/04/10/Mailman+3.0+alpha+1+released )
September 12, 2007 http://www.list.org/mailman-member/index.html
Pipermail
Instead of
http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-October/002263.html
this would be an improvement:
http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-10/002263.html
even better to incorporate the exact date (if not configurable use UTC time?) in the URL.
http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-10-30/002263.html
other: April 2024 !!! http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/
Further thoughts
Does one need the "002263" at all? If the full time is used
http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/tango-l/2006-10-30T18:12:14
maybe only a disambiguater needs to be added for message at the same second?
Comments
There's probably not much you can do about the website since all those dates are written by different people or software. I personally tend to use DD-MMM-YYYY format when I write dates manually, mostly because 1) I have an Emacs binding for it and 2) It's less prone to UK/US confusions .
You might have more luck fixing the dates in Pipermail, but I'll warn you that Pipermail is rough code to work with, and hasn't gotten much love in recent years.
I would prefer ISO 8601 dates. They are unambiguous across many cultures. They sort routinely as strings. And I'm used to them, as we use them at work (a very weak reason from the point of view of anyone else).
I've been using ISO 8601 format dates for years, and it was only a couple of years ago that I discovered what I was already doing had been standardized by the ISO.
The time format addition in the most recent version of the standard is pretty interesting.
And I've wanted to have the way pipermail generates URLs for articles fixed for years, but I'm not a Python programmer.
Sigh.... Anyway, count me in as a strong supporter of ISO 8601 format dates used consistently throughout all of Python, much less Mailman.