From itzchris@ccc.ccn2.nott.ac.uk Fri Dec 20 10:12:44 1996
Path: news.ibi.co.za!news1.saix.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!205.252.116.190!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.mathworks.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!warwick!news.nott.ac.uk!pciacjw
From: itzchris@ccc.ccn2.nott.ac.uk (Chris Gilbert)
Newsgroups: comp.software.year-2000
Subject: Re: Y2K: Cinderella: Web Site Open, Resistance? -Topic 008
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 96 08:12:44 GMT
Organization: The University of Nottingham
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <59dhps$9k4_001@nottingham.ac.uk>
References: <32b9a3cc.22634043@news2.fast.co.za>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pciacjw.nottingham.ac.uk
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4

Chris Anderson wrote:
[snip]
> So, here is the Question:
> 
> "Where we actually KNOW that Y2K damage will
> not occur, is it necessary to force the issue
> of compliant displays, in the face of active
> resistance?"

> I await your erudite comments.

Mmmm..good point Chris. I would say that the full format of the
date should always be used if only because it affirms and reinforces
the compliance of the underlying system. Allow a truncated date to
perpetuate and the door to non-compliance is left dangerously ajar.

Chris

---------------------------------------------------------------
                    Year 2000 problem
                       Panic NOW !
Synopsis: http://www.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk/~itzchris/2000-03.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------