I understand the partial motivation behind getting rid of the need to specify UTC±N, UT±N, and GMT±N, which do have differences, but I agree with the general sentiment expressed here that this negatively affects the readability of our commentary. -- Tim Parenti On 24 August 2016 at 09:51, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/08/16 14:39, Paul_Koning@dell.com wrote:
I am not a fan of this change in general, I think UTC-1 is both more
common, and less ambiguous than -01 (from the latter it isn't even obvious that the expression has anything to do with time offsets) but this change in particular ... So are you suggesting that all the entries that have already been changed to the ±NN syntax should be changed to UTC+/-N?
Looking at the posted patch I must say that in most cases the replacement is a lot more difficult to read than the original. Using UTC as a flag that the offset is based on that makes documentation unambiguous. But then I'm still fighting the fact that these ARE only offsets and have nothing to do with flagging DST time zones!
-- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk