Hi Jim,

>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.
>

I think it was as much because early system were based on paper forms systems, and paper forms often had the --/--/-- or --/--/19-- preprinted. You know, I have a legacy system which I converted to Y2K compliant using a third party tool - and it uses the rollover and two digit year. No problems. But I'm not insisting, as you say; my VFP apps use the full 4 digits. And if I'm around in 10001, 5 digits.

>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.
>
Well if you show the full century in the field they're going to need to arrow past the "20". Or we need a very fancy input box. Do you have any references there?

>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?
>
That's a fairly thin argument Jim - but of course I understand your point. Lets do a thought experiment. Lets say we worked out the age of the universe to the nearest year ... and we dropped the arbitrary reference to JC's birthday. So that makes this year something like 16,123,295,199. So what are you going to do to your users now! How big are your forms going to be? - LOL.
So 1999 is a relative year. So 99 is a relative year, relative to the start of the century. $1999 is not relative.

>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.

Well, people are people. They make all sorts of sensible decisions for all sorts of stupid reasons. Paper forms will start appearing with the "20" preprinted. Then the "20" will eventually be dropped. Then the data entry people will make less mistakes if they type in exactly what's on the form and the pressure will start. Just a prediction. But as you've said you've heard the arguments.

I don't feel strongly about the issue - but I do when the software tools 'impose' a restraint (as do the current form controls in VFP) which make it just that little bit more frustrating.

Regards