In message <199701022328.PAA05986@shade.twinsun.com>, Paul Eggert wrote: > While we're on the subject, I think `-00:00' is a kludge and should be > removed. How about the following convention instead? > > `Z' means the time is in UTC and the local UTC offset is unknown or undefined. > `+00' means the time is in UTC and the local UTC offset is 0. I'd very much prefer it if use of any kind of alphabetic codes for timezone indications were deprecated. They take special case code to handle, and are a nuisance. The -00:00 thing is a kludge OK, but it is one that works. Those few applications that actually want to know that the local time isn't (wasn't) really UTC can check for this, and recognise it, the vast majority which simply want to convert the time given to some standard reference (for collating, display in their local zone, etc) can simply parse the -00:00 the same as they would 00:00 (or +00:00, whichever it is) and don't need to worry about the difference, that the reported time is in UTC is all that matters to them, not why it is. While it is a kludge, it is a clever one. Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 18:46:02 -0500 From: kuhn@cs.purdue.edu ("Markus G. Kuhn") Message-ID: <199701022346.SAA01238@ector.cs.purdue.edu> Excellent suggestion! This will make clear whether the timestamp was created in London or by a device that does not care about local time. No, the +00:00 vs -00:00 can already achieve that, the 'Z' thing isn't necessary. And while I'm here, it is all very nice to follow 8061 and all that, but if the aim of this draft is really to make a spec for reporting times that can be used on the internet, it is probably more important that the current internet time specs be examined, and needless differences be avoided. Eg: The rfc822 (e-mail) way to report a numeric time zone is +nnnn (or -nnnn) - no colons. There's about as much hope of that ever changing as there is of redefining time to use a much more rational 100 seconds in a minute, etc. Writing a spec that won't be used isn't very productive. kre