>>One tiny problem with this. Try to enter the date 02/29/00, a valid date
>>for year 2000. The problem here is that Feb 29, 1900 is not a valid date
>>(not a leap year).
>>
>
>Well, 2000 should be a leap year, since it's dividable (divisable?) with
>400. Can anyone clear this out?

That's the way I've heard it, too...and 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, etc, are NOT leap years, to make time come out more accurately...