SD>> Why does compliance mean 4-digit years? If Maximus were to support
 SD>> 2-digit years properly ("01/14/00 = January 14, 2000"), how on earth
 SD>> could that not be compliance?
 GD> Interpretation is not compliance. Compliance means there is not a single
 GD> doubt as to what 01/14/00 means.
 SD> Aye, but therein lies the rub.
 SD> Suppose that we go whole-hog and we write October the 12th, 2001 as  SD> 
"10/12/2001".  Surely, that must eliminate all ambiguity, right?
 SD> Unfortunately, in the other 94.3% of the world that is 
Not to belabor this discussion, all I thought several of these folks were 
asking for is the following:
       [format] specifies the format to use for file-entry date
       stamps, and can be any of the following options:
                  mm-dd-yy (U.S.A., default)
                  dd-mm-yy (Canada/England)
                  yy-mm-dd (Japanese)
                  yymmdd   (Scientific)
Each "yy" to become "yyyy" thus the already flexible MAX remains so but with 
four digit year compliance the way other apps are being recoded or bios 
systems being altered.
 SD> not the United States, that date would be interpreted 
 SD> as December the 10th, 2001.  Your Japanese callers 
 SD> will have to figure out if that date means jyu-ni-
But you have already built that flexibility into MAX as noted above from the 
MAX docs, and even though you point out 94.3% of the world is not the USA, 
you did make it the default so most of this line of argument seems like 
"puffery". (IMHO)
But I still thank you for a great BBS...... I think those of us still running 
them want to see MAX remain the best.
--- Maximus 2.02
---------------