- From: Frank Olken at LBNL <olken@lbl.gov>
- Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 12:54:15 -0700
- To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
- CC: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Jeff Rafter <jeffrafter@definedweb.com>, vdv@dyomedea.com, xmlschema-dev@w3.org, olken@lbl.gov
Noah,
I agree with Henry, i.e., that 12:00:00Z == 13:00:00Z+1.
I think unadorned (lacking time zone designation)
times (local time) are ambiguous and should be discouraged.
Dates should have (mandatory) time zone designations also!!!
Frank Olken
Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:
> Henry Thompson writes:
>
> >> This is just not true. 12:00:00 is not equal to
> >> 12:00:00Z. What _is_ true is that the various
> >> timezone-specific ways of specifying a time
> >> _are_ equal, e.g. 12:00:00Z is equal to 13:00:00Z+1.
>
> I had missed the former point, but it was the latter that was the subject
> of my note. I think many users find it counterintuitive that 12:00:00Z ==
> 13:00:00Z+1, as many seem to think they are making a useful record of the
> timezone in which the time was noted. All my explanations and warnings
> were directed to this case, sorry for having missed the distinction
> between times with and without timezones. I still think the decision to
> allow timezones, but to make them insignificant in this case, is a
> questionable call.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 8 July 2001 15:47:57 UTC