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

From: John D. Burger (
Date: Wed Dec 07 2005 - 07:25:20 CST

  • Next message: Jukka K. Korpela: "Re: CLDR: 2 vs. 4 digit years in US?"

    Philippe Verdy wrote:

    > From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <>
    >> After all the fuss about Y2K six years ago, how can anyone seriously
    >> consider two-digit years? This shouldn't even be a question.
    > Almost all the fuss was unjustified, and infact proved to be not a
    > problem, because databases already store years in machine-readable
    > format that includes the complete year, or using a time counter with
    > simple units like seconds.

    Must ... resist ... cannot ...

    The assertion about databases is nonsense - see Richard T. Snodgrass's
    book, Developing Time-Oriented Database Applications in SQL, for a very
    nice description of all the screwed-up ways that databases used to
    store and interpret two-digit years. It's out of print, but available
    on-line here:

    As for the "unjustified fuss", we may never know for sure, but arguably
    Y2K proved to not be a big problem exactly because people made a lot of
    fuss, spent a lot of money, and rewrote a lot of code (and database

    - John D. Burger

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 07 2005 - 07:50:04 CST