X-Message-Number: 10197
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 00:59:35 -0700
From: Peter Merel <>
Subject: Y2K: 9/9/99

The one of Perry Metzger's objections to my y2k post that I failed
to answer in my followup to him was that 9/9/99 shouldn't be a 
particular worry as no one keeps date fields with just a single digit 
of precision. I recently found a good page addressing this and other 
'99 problems at

http://www.data-dimensions.com/html/milj45.htm :

"Another vulnerable area exists because of standard-language date editing, 
initialization, and validation rules. At the time many of these programs were 
written, the programs often required a number to be entered in the date field, 
even though a date might not be applicable. To accommodate program 
requirements for an entry, programmers designed programs so that 
users frequently enter 1/1/99 or 9/9/99 in date fields that do not have 
a specific date."

In other words, it's not that the fields are kept with a single digit of
precision, but that the data-entry operator enters them that way. I seem
to recall, from my brief and ancient experience of <shudder> Tandem 
Screen Cobol, that 9/9/99 was common shorthand because no dates begin
with 9 - so the user could just tap the '9' key four times to null a date.
See the URL for a lot more on this.

I confess Perry's recent silence on the rest of my postings is one of
the most ominous signs of trouble I've encountered. I know Perry to be a 
most determined and patient defender of his positions - if he has been so
easily convinced by these posts then there is trouble indeed.

But I'll not take silence as assent - what say, Perry, do you still think
Jeffrey and I are nuts or are you beginning to think there is really 
something to worry about?

Peter Merel.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10197