Re: LYNX-DEV Year 2000 Compliance

[Bela Lubkin]

Nelson Henry Eric wrote:

> > source files for any indication of Y2K compliance, and if they can see it
> 
> Thanks to Tom and Bela, we now know it is not compliant.

I'm not sure I would say that.

The two "actual problems" I reported related to Lynx's handling of data
provided to it by older programs which have Y2K problems.  Like any web
browser, Lynx must deal with all sorts of external programs: HTTP & FTP
servers, the output of HTML generators, local handlers for various MIME
types, etc.  My suggestions were intended to make Lynx more robust when
dealing with Y2K problems in *those* programs.

I did not find any places where Lynx's own internal activity would have
caused a Y2K problem.  Also, I didn't notice where Tom (you mean Thomas
Dickey?) found anything beyond those two.  (He did seem to question the
mktime() implementation, but I'm pretty sure that he'll find, on closer
examination, that it does *not* have a Y2K problem.  tm_year, in struct
tm, is *defined* as "years since 1900".  In 2003 it will have the value
103; this is normal, expected, and does not cause a problem.  struct tm
fields are not intended for unprocessed display.)

>Bela<