you can also add 9/9/99; it's not relied to Y2K testing but some developpers
forgot to remove masks in some fields they defined. To be checked...

I don't understand why 8/21/99 and 9/10/99 should be tested ?

JM
Roy Buzdor a écrit dans le message <[log in to unmask]>...
>John Dunlop wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 14, 1999 23:55, B T Vikram Kumar wrote,
>>
>> >> I remember to have seen  the following additional
>> >> dates also for testing (not sure of the resoning of
>> >> each).
>> >> 08/21/99, 09/10/99, 02/28/2000, 03/01/2000, 12/31/2000,
>> >> 01/01/2001
>>
>