Hi, On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
> Hi Chris, > > Hi Rainer, > > > > 32 octets sounds good. It would probably be a good idea to > > put an note in the IANA Concerns section that additional > > TIMESTAMP formats may be defined as the granularity becomes > > more definable and is needed. > > > > In your example, you have: > > > 1985-04-12T18:20:50.52-0500 > > Shouldn't that be: > > 1985-04-12T18:20:50.52-05:00 > > with a colon here ---------------^ > > Oops - I just included this to proove that the example is useful and > really read ;) Riiiiiiiight. :) > > > (I'm also assuming that you've checked the relevent daylight > > savings shifts to ensure that the time in your second example > > _is_ actually the same time as in the first example. :) > > To the best of *my* knowledge, it is. But, good point, it might be > better to have someone from the timezone verify it with a date from last > year, which might be easier to check. Or change it to PST and you do the > math ;) While my wife accuses me of spending too much time out on the left coast, I actually live in Austin, TX, USA. ;) > (I would prefer to have an US timezone in - I have that feeling > that this is not only easier as an example for the Americans but also > for the Europeans - but I don't intend to start a discussion on this). > How does this sound? I went here: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html and entered 11pm, April 12, 2003 UTC. The output said that it was 7pm, April 12, 2003 in New York (observing daylight savings time). Hoping that timezone stuff hasn't changed over the years, that would make your example: 1985-04-12T18:20:50.52-06:00 How's that? Thanks, Chris
