Re: [POLL] Proposed syntax for timestamps with time zone info (was: [FEATURE REQUEST] Timezone support in org-mode datestamps and org-agenda)

["Thomas S. Dye" <tsd@tsdye.online>]

Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:

> * Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> [2023-02-14 14:45]:
>> On 14/02/2023 16:45, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:41:38AM +0100, Heinz Tuechler 
>> > wrote:
>> > > Jean Louis wrote/hat geschrieben on/am 14.02.2023 07:00:
>> > > > Then just representation must be clear: @UTC is unclear 
>> > > > in those
>> > > > cases, but @RELTOUTC would be clear.
>> > > 
>> > > @RELTOUTC seems unfortunate, as it states only the obvious. 
>> > > If at all,
>> > > it should be @AHEADUTC or @BEHINDUTC or some abbreviation 
>> > > of it, but as
>> > > said above, it seems not necessary to me.
>> > 
>> > That's what the "+" and "-" do, anyway.
>> 
>> TZ=Etc/GMT-8 date '+%F %a %T %z %Z'
>> 2023-02-14 Tue 19:37:01 +0800 +08
>> 
>> TZ=Etc/GMT+8 date '+%F %a %T %z %Z'
>> 2023-02-14 Tue 03:38:24 -0800 -08
>> 
>> Notice sign in time zone identifier is opposite to time offset. 
>> However I am
>> against RELTOUTC/AHEADUTC/BEHINDUTC. From my point of view 
>> +0800/-0800 is
>> clear enough.
>> 
>> P.S. Last +08/-08 are really time zone abbreviations, not 
>> offset, however
>> unlike "BST" & Co. they are acceptable to specify offset
>> unambiguously.
>
> That is different use case Max. 
>
> For this use case I am in full agreement, that is what is used 
> anyway
> worldwide.
>
> What Ihor proposed is time stamp like:
>
>  2023-02-14 Tue 12:00:00 +0800 @UTC
>
> Though I just say when we put "UTC" that means normally "UTC 
> time
> zone" and such has no prefix that is positive or negative, can 
> be
> zero.

Sigh.  UTC is not a time zone.

All the best,
Tom

-- 
Thomas S. Dye
https://tsdye.online/tsdye