* Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> [2023-02-01 15:23]: > [2022-11-12 14:00 @UTC+2] > [2022-11-12 14:00 @UTC-2:30] > > are also fine within the proposed format.
The above format is unclear to me. I look at timestamps every day, too many, often change them. I cannot understand what you mean. If there is considered UTC time zone, then the only prefix for such time stamp is +00 and nothing else, or no prefix at all. The time stamps that specify UTC offset are expressed in local time, not in UTC time. Here are few examples of ordinary usage of UTC offset converted to UTC: 2023-01-07 09:21:11.019166+03 which means: 2023-01-07 06:21:11.019166 @UTC 2022-10-05 14:09:04.79737+03 which means: 2022-10-05 11:09:04.79737 @UTC Due to that ordinary usage of time stamps, something like @UTC+2 where you specify 14:00 o'clock, is unclear, if you mean UTC time plus 2, like 16 o'clock, or you mean 12 o'clock. Time stamps having UTC offset are in their representation such as in calendar tied to the time zone, as they maybe are derived from system time, where time zone need not be displayed in the time stamp, but it is nevertheless there and used by program to derive the UTC offset. And it is either UTC time, or local time plus UTC offset. There is no UTC time plus UTC offset, why would anybody need that as time stamp? -- Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/
