Xref: utzoo comp.std.internat:391 comp.text:2331
Newsgroups: comp.std.internat,comp.text
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!dgp.toronto.edu!flaps
From: flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal)
Subject: Re: Dates (was American vs. European numerical usage)
Message-ID: <8808291322.AA04048@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu>
Organization: University of Toronto
References: <3900@enea.se> <1785@water.waterloo.edu> <183@dcs.UUCP> <126@jetson.UPMA.MD.US> <764@philmds.UUCP> <186@dcs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 88 08:02:20 EDT


In article <186@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes:
>The posting I was responding to lamented the fact that it would be difficult
>to get EVERYBODY using international-style dates (YYYY MM DD), and that even
>in countries which use it, the abbreviated, two-digit year was very common.
>He suggested that THAT would cause major confusion 13 years from now.
>
>Programmers who totally forget that this is not the only century have
>ALWAYS run into problems (see the posting quoted above [birthdates in
>the 19th century]), it's got nothing to do with 13 years from now;

Ahem.  Everyone seems to be missing this originally good point.  What
date is 030482?  Well, if you're American it's 4 March 1982, else it's
3 April 1982.  What date is 820403?  3 April 1982 no matter what.  But
what date is 030405?  Well maybe it's 3 April 2005, maybe it's 4 March
2005, but it's possibly 5 April 2003 as well.  This is the confusion.

This doesn't apply to birthdates from the 19th century.  If an adult's
birthdate is 860201, you might first assume data entry error, then
assume 1 February 1886.  There's the century problem, but not the year
vs day number problem.

It's the low year numbers within the century that does it, obviously.

ajr

--
owotd (rot13): fabgentf