Hey Rob!

 RS> Which is to say: it would not work at all, in a backwards
 RS> compatible way.

It is EXACTLY as backwards compatible as it needs to be, both for now as well
as back in 1995 and probably earlier.  Unless you can point to a currently
running system, or even one back in 1968, that required a two digit year to
function in order to achieve proper FTN based digital communications, then I
will still maintain that the current proposal stands and is indeed TRULY
backwards compatible.  By you limited definition nothing is backwards
compatible including 8-bit systems that require a 2 digit year for their punch
card IO database.

Please feel free to fold, spindle and mutilate THAT.

 RS> Continuing what?

Living and learning.

Life is good,
Maurice

... Hwæt bið betst and wyrst?  Ic ðe secge, mannes word.
    What is the best and the worst thing?  I tell you, man's word.
--- GNU bash, version 5.1.0(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)