We did a test on our systems here and have attached the TAF we used. On our Mac OS X server we have gotten results contrary to what is indicated in the documentation. If anyone else wants to run the file and report back their findings we can present a better case if it is indeed a bug or simply a discrepancy with the documentation.
More explanation of the differences is contained in the TAF results.
Jason
________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
date.taf
Description: Binary data
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 10:53 PM, Roland Dumas wrote:
by this, a date of 03, should correctly resolve to 2003, right?
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 07:14 PM, Kevin Quinn wrote:
Before you pass judgement, check to see what your DATEFORMAT and/or TIMESTAMPFORMAT is set to.
From the manual:
Note: If a date format string contains %Y, but the value for the year is
two-digit, the following centuries are assumed, if appropriate:
Value Century 00-36 2000s
37-99 1900s
That is, a two-digit year of 99 is evaluated as 1999, and a two-digit year
of 00 is evaluated as 2000.
So, if your date format string contains a %y, 19XX is probably assumed.
_______________________________________________________________________ _
TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
-- ____________________________________________________________________
Jason Pamental, President [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bathysphere Digital Media Services, Inc. http://bathyspheredms.com
____________________________________________________________________
Tel: 401.490.6830 Fax: 401.490.6831 ________________________________________
A North American Distributor for Witango (http://www.witango.us)
Rapid Web Application Development - XML Execution Engine
