ISO8601 at Yahoo! Groups

Re: UTC didn't exist before 1961

Deckers, Michael — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:50:58 GMT

... That's fine if your application imposes such restrictions, but it is not what ISO 8601 requires. ISO 8601 fixes some notations but it does not constrain

Re: UTC didn't exist before 1961

piebaldconsult — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:57:31 GMT

... Personally, I think that would be fairly silly.

Re: Ten Years On...

Tex Texin — Sun, 31 May 2009 01:13:27 GMT

Reading through that thread, after the first few lines, I am not sure it is what I would call healthy debate. But it is nice that yyyymmdd is becoming more

Ten Years On...

g1smd_amsat_org — Sat, 30 May 2009 22:50:40 GMT

[2009-May-30] Ten years on, and some communities are still having healthy debate...

Re: UTC didn't exist before 1961

G Ashton — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:33:56 GMT

When I mentioned in an earlier post that I would reject certain date-times in the ISO 8601 format, I meant that I would halt processing or flag them for

Re: UTC didn't exist before 1961

John Steele — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:56:56 GMT

Tex, I agree with the dilemma you pose. In reality, that means date alone often does not suffice and you must consider time of day as well. However, in

Re: UTC didn't exist before 1961

Tex Texin — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:54:18 GMT

John Good comments. I am surprised by your comment on dates. Dates definitely do have time zones. Since time zones span 25 hours, without mention of the zone,

Re: UTC didn't exist before 1961

johnmsteele — Fri, 29 May 2009 11:39:47 GMT

I agree with Tex's remarks. But I would add the following three points: *Dates don't have time zones. Only times or "date and time" representations have time

Re: UTC didn't exist before 1961

Tex Texin — Fri, 29 May 2009 09:46:31 GMT

Hi, You are welcome to do whatever you want of course, but I don?t think this is what was suggested or recommended and I don?t think you should in any way

Re: UTC didn't exist before 1961

pqrc96 — Fri, 29 May 2009 09:21:06 GMT

I started this thread. After seeing the responses, I don't really see anything that would change my ideas, but knowing that my thoughts have been reviewed by

to bam

Tex Texin — Wed, 27 May 2009 04:26:18 GMT

Your first mail may have bounced, it looks like the from address was messed up. However, your subsequent mails seemd to be forwards of the bounced mail and

Returned mail: User unknown

bam@... — Wed, 27 May 2009 03:19:24 GMT

The original message was received at 2009-05-26 23:15:29 -0400 from postoffice.local [10.0.0.1] ...

Re: UTC didn't exist before 1961

nguyenivy@... — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:35:58 GMT

I was thinking of historical examples like the offset The Netherlands used sometime in the last 100 years that had an offset precise to the centisecond.

Re: UTC didn't exist before 1961

piebaldconsult — Tue, 26 May 2009 14:09:53 GMT

... Yes, but seconds generally aren't important in day-to-day events anyway. If you're going to try to calculate an offset to great precision you may need to

Re: UTC didn't exist before 1961

piebaldconsult — Tue, 26 May 2009 14:03:17 GMT

... True, so we may never know the offset, but that doesn't interfere with using ISO 8601. You can simply indicate "local time" by not specifying the offset.