Different methodsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
I have read repeatedly that there are a number if different methods being used to "fix" the problem ie windowing, and others i dont remember. Is there any one particular way of fixing it that is being used? Will these different methods of fixes be able to co-habitate? Is this a serious problem?
-- Vic (Light_Servant@yahoo.com), September 10, 1998
No. Sometimes. Yes.
-- Nigel Arnot (email@example.com), September 10, 1998.
Nigel, you're so verbose. You've got to learn to be a little more terse in your replies.
-- rocky knolls (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 10, 1998.
Any scheme other than the simple one of using 4 digits to represent the year is indeed adding a huge layer of complexity, especially since now one has to know the method used, which is not obvious. Consider: Microsoft's Access and Excel products both use the Windowing/Fixed method for 2-digit year representation -- but because of different pivot-points (the breakoff year that is considered to be 20th or 21st century), their sharing of data becomes incompatible. A perfect example of two "Y2K compliant" systems that cannot communicate!!!
-- Joe (email@example.com), September 10, 1998.
Using the preferred expansion technique (4 digit years instead of 2) does not guarantee compatibility. There are several different ways of formatting a date field, all of which are being used. MMDDYYYY, YYYYMMDD, DDMMYYYY, YYYYDDMM, and perhaps others as well. While all formats work internally, what happens once the data is shared? It's a mess. Standards needed to be put in place; obviously, it's too late for that.
Using the windowing technique has its own problems, as cited above.
-- Steve Hartsman (firstname.lastname@example.org), September 10, 1998.