Re: [POLL] Proposed syntax for timestamps with time zone info (was: [FEATURE REQUEST] Timezone support in org-mode datestamps and org-agenda)

[Heinz Tuechler]

Jean Louis wrote/hat geschrieben on/am 14.02.2023 07:00:
> * tomas@tuxteam.de <tomas@tuxteam.de> [2023-02-12 16:50]:
> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 12:33:40PM +0300, Jean Louis wrote:
> > > * Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@posteo.net> [2023-02-10 13:48]:
> > > > Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > If you start adding in Org "fixed" time with UTC offset, that is a new
> > > > > type of timestamp, as it is not common in world.
> > > >
> > > > It is how ISO8601 defines offsets.
> > >
> > > - did you say you wish to represent time with UTC time zone by using
> > >   UTC offset?
> > >
> > > - and I said, UTC time is always without offset, and if any is
> > >   represented then it must be +00
> > >
> > > - and now you say that ISO8601 defines offsets... sorry, you are
> > >   confusing me and readers.
> >
> > It is not about "the offset OF UTC". It is about "the offset
> > RELATIVE TO UTC".
>
> Yes, surely is clear to me personally.

If 2022-11-12 12:00+02 # 12:00 UTC+2 should mean that local time is
2022-11-12 12:00 and that it is 2 hours _ahead_ of UTC, then it seems
intuitively clear to me. I would assume that holds for many others as well.

> That we got for sure.
>
> Then just representation must be clear: @UTC is unclear in those
> cases, but @RELTOUTC would be clear.

@RELTOUTC seems unfortunate, as it states only the obvious. If at all,
it should be @AHEADUTC or @BEHINDUTC or some abbreviation of it, but as
said above, it seems not necessary to me.

Heinz