2190RE: [ISO8601] Re: UTC didn't exist before 1961
- May 29, 2009
You are welcome to do whatever you want of course, but I don’t think this is what was suggested or recommended and I don’t think you should in any way suggest that members of this group endorsed your proposal.
Personally, I would support using Z going prior to 1972 with the understanding that it refers to GMT.
Time zones did exist prior to 1972 going back to 1890 for use by trains, and slightly earlier so I would support those as well.
If I was given a date with a time zone, I would want to record what I was given rather than make a conversion which if I discover later was wrong for that time or locale, I might not be able to correct without knowing the original value.
Strong rejection policies are a good idea provided your feeds are willing and able to support your model.
Often, they are not able to conform and tolerance may be necessary.
Conformance to the standard is a good thing.
Using the standard in a way that gives you a practical implementation is a better thing.
Rejecting practical requirements under the guise of conforming to the standard is a bad idea, especially where this standard specifically enables support via mutual agreement.
I started this thread. After seeing the responses, I don't really see anything that would change my ideas, but knowing that my thoughts have been reviewed by this group makes me feel more confident in them.
In the future, I will not emit ISO 8601 dates with a Z suffix or a time zone unless the date is on or after January 1, 1972, the date of the formal adoption of the name Coordinated Universal Time. I will reject incoming dates in that format if I am able to determine that time zones had not been adopted in the place in question on the date stated. I will reject incoming dates with a time zone offset that is not a multiple of 15 minutes.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>