Re: Revenge of the Y2K Bug?

[lvirden@cas.org]

According to Doug Browning  <wpg750@mb.imag.net>:
:There was no change. The Gregorian Calendar was designed that way. There
:years), except for 1700, 1800, and 1900 as required to bring the
:
:Mike Westerfield wrote:
:> >is a leap year. The divisable by 400 rule no longer applys because

:> Do you have a source for that? When I researched calendars a few years ago I
:> never saw anything like this. Based on all of the information I found, 2000
:> is a leap year, but 1900, 2100, 2200 and 2300 are not, as Beverly said. When
:> did this change? Who changed it?


Mike, you might try emailing the people at
<URL: http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/pubinfo/leaflets/leapyear/leapyear.html >
the Royal Greenwich Observatory, who probably are the authoritative source for
the topic.  The above URL is their info leaflet on the Leap year and 
doesn't mention any change in the 'division by 400' rule for future years.

-- 
<URL: mailto:lvirden@cas.org> Quote: Saving the world before bedtime.
<*> O- <URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/>
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting
should be construed as representing my employer's opinions.