Re: CLDR: 2 vs. 4 digit years in US?

From: Eric Muller (
Date: Tue Dec 06 2005 - 19:59:53 CST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: CLDR: 2 vs. 4 digit years in US?"

    Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

    > After all the fuss about Y2K six years ago, how can anyone seriously
    > consider two-digit years? This shouldn't even be a question.

    Apparently, a number of people are able to deal with the ambiguity of
    two digit years without too much problem. I have not yet found a bank
    cashier who told me "sorry, but this check is more than 100 years old,
    we can't cash it" (or even less "sorry, this check is almost 100 years
    in the future").


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 06 2005 - 20:02:00 CST