Different methods

greenspun.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 (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), September 10, 1998.

Nigel, you're so verbose. You've got to learn to be a little more terse in your replies.

-- rocky knolls (rknolls@hotmail.com), 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 (shar@pei.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 (hartsman@ticon.net), September 10, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ