Re: 2039 cutoff

[Gqcy <gmufasa01@xxxxxxxxx>]

We just had that discussion a few weeks ago at my shop.
Our reason we convert 8 position to 6 is to not cause dissonance with 
users. :)  we as well needed to allow "all 9's", "all 0's" for special
meaning.  Again, this would be a easy job if not for those pesky users.


We just presented to the CIO the following options:
1) Leave the 6 position entry on screens, but we will make our own 
"rolling assumption" on the "century" value.
2) make screen dates proper length.

both solutions require us to touch lots of objects...



The frustrating thing is on the Y2K tool we bought back in 1997, from
Linoma,  had the option of handling all conversion in a callable 
routine.  We didn't choose that option....




On 11/28/2011 1:11 PM, rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I am pretty adamant about "real" dates also.  I've heard the arguments
> against it.  Mostly dealing with "special" dates.  A bulk of which could
> be handled by using null - some by reserved special dates for special
> meanings like using 0001-01-01 for this and 0001-01-02 for that...
>
> But, that being out of the way, they could have been using real dates and
> converting from iso to mmddyy for no other reason than to save screen real
> estate.
>
> Since Bruce Vining has posted this month (and about dates - no less) let's
> see if he pipes in.
>
>
> Rob Berendt