Subj : alternative DateTime (ref: fts-0001.016)
To   : Maurice Kinal
From : Rob Swindell
Date : Sat Dec 19 2020 04:17 pm

  Re: alternative DateTime (ref: fts-0001.016)
  By: Maurice Kinal to Rob Swindell on Sat Dec 19 2020 11:26 pm

 > Hey Rob!
 >
 >  RS> Your proposal is not backwards compatible.
 >
 > My best guess is that any application that cannot handle the four digit year
 > deserves to die a horrible death if it hasn't already.  My proposal would
 > have worked just as well back in 1995 as it does today without any
 > alteration.

Which is to say: it would not work at all, in a backwards compatible way.

 >  RS> I was referring to the badly defined specs published by the FTSC
 >  RS> over the past 30+ years.
 >
 > If so then perhaps there should be more proposals such as mine in order to
 > correct the wrongs.  I have plans on continuing depending on the outcome of
 > this particular proposal.  How about you?

Continuing what?

 > Too bad it didn't happen 20 years ago when it *should* have but it has to
 > start somewhere and near as I can figure I am doing the exact right thing.
 > If you can come up with something better I am all ears and am more than
 > willing to cede.  Until then my proposal stands as is.

The something better is a new control paragraph which includes a complete unambiguous date/time stamp in a standard format. I'm pretty sure I stated so in my first reply to this topic.

.