Debbie Blumenthal <[log in to unmask]> writes:
 
>Isn't it better and safer to convert the data to hold the century and
>be done with it?  Yes, there's still a lot of work involved, but when
>it's done, it's done.  You won't have the ugly date problem coming
>back to slap you in the face on a regular basis.
 
I could not agree more.  Century interpretation based on the year alone is very
error-prone.  We are converting all of our date fields to hold 8 digits and
storing the dates as CCYYMMDD.  Most of the time we can "assume" that the CC
will be 19; but, that's only because we "know" our data.  If we were working
with birth dates for the general population, some of the CC's would be 18
instead.  Anyway, IMHO this is one situation that needs to be fixed, and fixed
the "right" way:  By storing the entire date, including the century.
 
Jim Phillips
[log in to unmask]