>>>>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2023, Florian Schmaus wrote: >> Some, including me, consider timestamps without timezone specifiers to >> be in local time (either of the consumer or producer of the >> timestamp). Hence, if you really must have UTC here, then at least >> consider making it explicit my requiring the 'Z' timezone specifier >> (which, if you want to be ISO compatible, probably means that the >> timestamp must include HH:MM too).
> How about converting package.mask to XML? The xs:date type would allow > a date followed by a time zone [1]. > /me hides Seriously, this isn't a hill I am willing to die on. I still prefer UTC there, but I'd be fine if the wording said "should" instead of "must". Ulrich
