>David,
>
>Two digit years are blatantly incorrect and misleading. To be living through this mess and then still insist on two digit years is not unlike the Ostrich with its head in the sand. We got in this mess because of two digit years that were proposed at a time when disk sotrage was very expensive. Today the cost of storage is minimal.
>
>There is NO REQUIREMENT that a user type all four digits, but showing them less than the actual year, which BTW is 1999 is an unforgiveable error.
>
>Perhaps you would like your next check to drop the first two digits? Oh, so $1,999 is not the same as $99, gee that's interesting. How is it that 99 is the same as 1999 but $99 is not the same as $1,999?
>
>I've heard all the arguments about users revolting and so forth. I wrote a system for the probate courts in my state in 1984 and we made four digit years. The revolt? Well it lasted about two days then the user were used to it and they appreciated not having ambiguity in the dates in their system (the system handles dates in three centuries 19th, 20th, and 21st).
>
>Our particular occupation is heavily involved in validity and accuracy. To display a date without the whole year is absolutely contrary to both validity and accuracy.

Reminds me of the client that asked: Why do programmer's insist on abbreviating Year 2000 as Y2K? Isn't that what got them into trouble in the first place?