[tz] [PROPOSED PATCH 1/4] Prefer +-NN notation for UT-offset time zones in comments.

Tim Parenti tim at timtimeonline.com
Wed Aug 24 13:56:09 UTC 2016

I understand the partial motivation behind getting rid of the need to
specify UTC±N, UT±N, and GMT±N, which do have differences, but I agree with
the general sentiment expressed here that this negatively affects the
readability of our commentary.

Tim Parenti

On 24 August 2016 at 09:51, Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk> wrote:

> On 24/08/16 14:39, Paul_Koning at dell.com wrote:
> >> I am not a fan of this change in general, I think UTC-1 is both more
> >> > common, and less ambiguous than -01 (from the latter it isn't even
> >> > obvious that the expression has anything to do with time offsets)
> >> > but this change in particular ...
> > So are you suggesting that all the entries that have already been
> changed to the ±NN syntax should be changed to UTC+/-N?
> Looking at the posted patch I must say that in most cases the
> replacement is a lot more difficult to read than the original. Using UTC
> as a flag that the offset is based on that makes documentation
> unambiguous. But then I'm still fighting the fact that these ARE only
> offsets and have nothing to do with flagging DST time zones!
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -----------------------------
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/attachments/20160824/61995737/attachment.htm>

More information about the tz mailing list