Re: Digest Number 13
- "Steve" said:
> This begs a question - is there an official listingThe point of using numeric values is exactly that there are no
> of all the names/abbreviations of the time zones
> available? For example, I thought BST (British Summer Time)
> was a standard till I found BST also meant Bering Standard Time.
international agreements on names for timezones, *and* in their
absence much duplication.
> And what about the ISO8601 time standard, when included with aHowever, the "Note" to the relevant paragraph does say that the T may
> date? To be fully compliant there must be a 'T' between the
> date and time but it looks a bit daft eg. 2000-01-07T23:46.
> I don't think persuaded webmasters will be keen on this.
be omitted "by mutual agreement". And if you regard the date and time
as two separate entities (separated, perhaps, by a space?) then the
question doesn't arise ...
- Fred Bone writes:
> However, the "Note" to the relevant paragraph does say that the TThat doesn't wash. If the local time is other than UTC, then times in
> may be omitted "by mutual agreement". And if you regard the date
> and time as two separate entities (separated, perhaps, by a space?)
> then the question doesn't arise ...
the vicinity of midnight affect the date. If you were specifying the
time zone offset, you would need to do so for both your entities.
Taking things ad absurdum, the time zone offset would be a third
entity to be combined with the other two. We seem to be straying
rather far from ISO8601.