|
From: | Thomas S. Dye |
Subject: | Re: UTC or not UTC for timestamps in the past ([FEATURE REQUEST] Timezone support in org-mode) |
Date: | Mon, 23 Jan 2023 16:44:55 -1000 |
User-agent: | mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 27.1 |
Aloha Max, Max Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> writes:
On 23/01/2023 23:04, Thomas S. Dye wrote:I understand above that it is easier understandable when reading [2023-01-22 Sun 08:29@+1100] as it is assumed by poster (I guess Max)Yes, the offset here is ambiguous--is it offset from some timezone or fromthat user will understand that there is +11 hours ahead.UTC?Are you aware of usage base time other than UTC nowadays? My impression is that various libraries do not allow to get such formats easily. That is why e.g. web sites tends to present time in the server timezone (often not explicitlyspecified) or use JavaScript to convert it to browser timezone.I believed that [2023-01-22 Sun 08:29@+1100] unambiguously suggests offset fromUTC.
Not for a casual programmer like me. The timestamp alone might easily be read as 11 hours ahead of local time. Nevertheless, Org is certainly free to interpret it as relative to UTC.
Are there local references that may confuse users? I mean something like 9 hoursahead of Moscow (Asia/Kamchatka) used in USSR.
I think 9 hours ahead of a timezone with a potentially variable offset from UTC has the potential to sow confusion, yes.
All the best, Tom -- Thomas S. Dye https://tsdye.online/tsdye
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |