On 31 May 2013 08:17, David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 06:47 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 10:10 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > let's call it UTC, not GMT, to have same terminology as in RFC. > > > > > > I sometimes like to use 'GMT' just to reinforce the "GMT does *not* > > > mean UK time" message. :) > > > > <pedantry> > > It's certainly true that GMT is not the same as UK time, but even GMT is > > not really a standard timezone (though it's still used in some > > countries). UTC is the correct term AFAIK. > > </pedantry> > > I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that GMT isn't a "standard > timezone". What type of standard do you mean? It is used as the legal > time (or the basis for it) in a number of countries, and is thus in the > timezone database. What more does a timezone need, to be a "standard > timezone"? > > Strictly speaking, GMT and UTC are *different* things. They can differ > by up to a second. But that isn't really important. For most practical > purposes, they are interchangeable.
I meant a timezone officially recognized by ISO. I don't question that GMT is a legal designation in several countries. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Time_zone_designators. poc
_______________________________________________ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
