>Joe,
>
>You are preaching to the worng person here. I firmly believe that showing two digits of a year is exactly what has caused the whole Y2K problem in the first place. The year is 1999 and not 99, 99 is incorrect and is ambigous.

I am not arguing the virtue of the 2 digit year. I simply understand the specs as they are given to me (and the office politics behind the specs). I know there might be a point in time where we say "We are going with a 4 digit year." I also know that that point in time is not in the very near future.

>
>Showing four digit years does NOT require the user to type four digits, they can type only two and the set ... rollover ... will control the century that is used.
>

This is not true. If I go into a TextBox that has a date already entered (say, 2000/03/05) and I type 990305 and tab out, the date I get is 9903/05/05.


>The point is easily demonstrated by asking what date is 02/01/92? First ti depends on the set date format setting, it may be Jan 2 or Feb 1 or '92, but what 92, is it 2092, 1992, 1892, or 1492. When I typed it I was thinking "Columbus sailed the ocean blue" so it must 1492.
>
>If you do not display the full date you are asking for problems later on. How about the birthdate in and the contract expiration date in the 2000's that one should be really fun with out allowing the typing of the century.

ROLLOVER should handle this and any situation that we will ever encounter. If it doesn't, I might be forced to go into a table and manually change a date. If a user tries to enter a birthdate for 1895 (and gets 1995), the user would soon recognize the problem and it would be fixed. But almost all (maybe all) of our plans have a maximum age of 70. We do group benefits, not individual.

The bottom line is that I have a requirement that it appears I cannot meet without creating my own Date TextBox.

Joe