In message <mailman.0.1377271338.14451.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, singhals <singhals@erols.com> writes: [] >I am fairly neutral on the merits of the idea that further clarity is >required for "4th Quarter 1876", mostly because by the time civil reg I'd have no problem with "4th Quarter 1876". "Dec 1876", however, could mislead, especially if - as could easily happen! - it got separated from the "2a 123" or whatever that most of us recognise as a BMD index format. That was all! >begins in England, I have no one in England to be affected. (-: [I take it that wherever you _do_ have people, doesn't use the "Dec 1876" way of referring to quarters.] > >My point was, there are enough disparities in manners-of-recording that >have to be considered while reading a date that it seems downright >malicious to deliberately elect to create yet another. The "Q2" format is already quite widely used, not least by those here, so it isn't "yet another". > >Standardization works IF AND ONLY IF it can be enforced by something >other than peer pressure. Some folks don't acknowledge the existence of >peers. (g) Indeed! All I was suggesting was that we don't _propagate_ something that is already ambiguous. > >Cheryl -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.