* Stefan Nobis <stefan...@snobis.de> [2023-02-01 12:13]: > <to...@tuxteam.de> writes: > > > 2023-03-23 02:30 @Europe/Berlin refers to /two/ points in time, thus > > it /is/ ambiguous. > > As far as I understand the definitions, the point in time "2023-03-23 > 02:30 @Europe/Berlin" is clearly defined as 2023-03-23 02:30 UTC+0100. > > A bit more problematic would be "2023-03-26 02:30 @Europe/Berlin". > Strictly speaking, this point in time does not exist, because in the > night from 2023-03-25 to 2023-03-26 the clock will jump from 02:00 > directly to 03:00 in the time zone Europe/Berlin. Therefore the > /interpretation/ of this timestamp is ambiguous.
Thank you! The generation of invalid time stamps is programming bug. > The real problem would be e.g. "2023-10-29 02:30 @Europe/Berlin". This > point in time really exist twice, there is 02A:30 (02:30 UTC+0200) and > 02B:30 (02:30 UTC+0100) in this night of switching back from DST to > normal time! > > So, in general, only using the time zone name may indeed lead to > ambiguous interpretations of timestamps. Exactly! Thank you! With the correction that "this point in time really exists twice" -- well, not like that, you have specified 2 different time points by specifying different UTC offset, so those are different time points. Though I got your ▲ -- Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/
