RE: L-date fields

[boothm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Wouldn't a d-o-b field be considered "strictly necessary" for a 4-digit
year on the screen?  as well as any fields relating to property deeds and
transfers, historical references, obvious on-screen sorting fields and
filters, and query usage?  It's reasonable to expect a user to understand
the appearance of 4-digit years in those cases.  While most dates will
easily be contained in the 100-year window we now have available, if there
is any doubt about a field then it should have 4-digit displays on the
screen.

on 09/13/97 at 07:29 AM, "Kahn, David" <KAHN@tengizchevroil.com> said:


A program should not accept a future DOB under any circumstances. The

program should be able to calculate the reasonable window for any

particular date and force confirmation of the defaulted century whenever

there is more than one possible solution. I don't think it's reasonable

to expect users to key the century part of the date when it's not

strictly necessary.


Dave Kahn

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
boothm@earth.goddard.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to "MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com".
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MAJORDOMO@midrange.com
|    and specify 'unsubscribe MIDRANGE-L' in the body of your message.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---