On Thursday, 30 October 2025 01:12:25 Greenwich Mean Time Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2025-10-29, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 29 October 2025 01:29:02 Greenwich Mean Time Nuno Silva 
wrote:
> >> On 2025-10-28, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> >> > On Monday, 20 October 2025 15:31:31 Greenwich Mean Time Peter 
Humphrey
> >> 
> >> > wrote:
> >> [Wait, what I see is 15:31:31 +01:00, or 14:31:31Z, wouldn't that be
> >> 14:31:31 GMT, or is GMT supposed to follow WEST?]
> > 
> > GMT does not follow anything, and especially not France, which lost the
> > primacy struggle in the 19th century. The global longitude reference was
> > defined to pass through the Royal Greenwich Observatory, not somewhere in
> > Paris. [1]
> 
> I think France uses the Central time (CET/CEST), Western time (WET/WEST)
> should also be London time, except that it seems it might have other
> legal names in the UK?
> 
> > Each nation sets its own dates of summer time, as far as I know.
> 
> I don't know what's the current status in the UK, but at least EU
> countries all follow the same date and time for DST changes: last Sunday
> of March and last Sunday of October at 01:00 UTC.

The current status in the UK is the same as it has always been since that 
international standard was established: we use Greenwich Mean Time. The clocks 
are advanced one hour to make British Summer Time. We don't have names for 
anyone else's custom in times and dates; why should we? We also don't have a 
concept of daylight saving; nothing is saved, after all.

> Look at the dates: on 2025-10-20, 15:31:31 London time would be 14:31:31
> GMT. Your *reply* was composed after DST ended, but the quoted message is
> from before last Sunday, so that timestamp ought to say "British Summer
> Time". Yet the named timezone named for that quoted message is the non-DST
> one.

I have no messages in KMail with that date, neither in this thread nor in the 
waste bin. I looked yesterday, and I've checked again today. So I cannot 
either confirm or deny what you say. Let's just drop the whole thing.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.




Reply via email to