Re: CLDR: 2 vs. 4 digit years in US?

From: Paul Hastings (paul@sustainableGIS.com)
Date: Tue Dec 06 2005 - 21:49:51 CST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: CLDR: 2 vs. 4 digit years in US?"

    Deborah Goldsmith wrote:
    > http://dev.icu-project.org/cgi-bin/locale-bugs/discuss?id=920
    >
    > The issue has been raised as to whether to change the number of
    > digits in the year for short date formats from 2 to 4 for the en_US
    > locale. In other words, should short dates, which are currently
    > formatted like 12/06/05, be changed to 12/06/2005?

    kind of clashes w/core java's format and it's not exactly "short". i'd
    vote to keep it 00.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 06 2005 - 21:50:56 CST