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