RS> Which is to say: it would not work at all, in a backwards RS> compatible way.
It is EXACTLY as backwards compatible as it needs to be, both for now as well as back in 1995 and probably earlier. Unless you can point to a currently running system, or even one back in 1968, that required a two digit year to function in order to achieve proper FTN based digital communications, then I will still maintain that the current proposal stands and is indeed TRULY backwards compatible. By you limited definition nothing is backwards compatible including 8-bit systems that require a 2 digit year for their punch card IO database.
Please feel free to fold, spindle and mutilate THAT.
RS> Continuing what?
Living and learning.
Life is good, Maurice
... Hwæt bið betst and wyrst? Ic ðe secge, mannes word. What is the best and the worst thing? I tell you, man's word. --- GNU bash, version 5.1.0(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu) * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
