Re: Revenge of the Y2K Bug?

["Mike Westerfield" <MikeW50@aol.com>]

----------
In article <36A4BDB0.3F33F020@mb.imag.net>, Doug Browning
<wpg750@mb.imag.net> wrote:


>Actually, the year 2000 IS a leap year. Beginning with that year, EVERY four years
>is a leap year. The divisable by 400 rule no longer applys because the calendar is
>now on track and only requires a additional day every 4 years to maintain
>accuracy.

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 Westerfield