Hi Mark, You’re right, it is absolutely correct. For my purposes GMT and UTC are equivalent because I’m not concerned with fractions of a second.
Regards, Gregory On Fri, Aug 19, 2011, at 12:53 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Gregory- > > Thursday, August 18, 2011, 2:42:22 PM, you wrote: > >> After playing with it, I?ve come to the conclusion that the only >> correct, or most nearly correct, system-independent timestamp is the > > No, it's *absolutely* correct, by definition. It's off by the fraction > of a second it takes the signal to get from NIST's servers to your > computer, and you even get the correction factor if you want to apply > it. > >> seconds as converted from a time server such as NIST. However, even >> that won?t display correctly in any other date-time format on a >> local machine if the time zone is set incorrectly. That means that >> the only display format that is sure to be correct is NIST?s GMT, >> uncontaminated by local time zone settings. > > NIST's time is UTC, not GMT. You originally said (wading my way back > through the posts here) you wanted an absolute timestamp irrespective > of the client machines. Here you have to different implementation of > that timestamp: the julian date and the UTC date/time. Is there > something more you're looking for? > > -- > -Mark Wieder _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
