I'm not constrained by the limitations of the ISO standard. All you really showed was an alternate display format, which could easily be Y10K compliant.
020080905 also sorts as one field. How one displays the field does not mean it had to be stored that way. On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 02:11:32 -0400, Gerhard Postpischil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Kenneth E Tomiak wrote: >> I wasn't joking when I jumped over Y2K and went to Y10K, it has not caught >> on, but today is 09/05/02008. Why is everyone waiting? > >The ISO standard is 2008-09-05. Among other things it has the >advantage of making date sorting faster by reducing three fields >to one. > > >Gerhard Postpischil >Bradford, VT > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
