From: "Nuutti Kotivuori" <naked@iki.fi>
> Mark D. Baushke wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I concur with Nuutti that if the time has a
> > colon, the time zone should also have a colon. If you really do not
> > like a colon, then for many cases the precision could be reduced and
> > you could use '2002-06-22 11:14:42 +03' if you didn't want to have
> > '2002-06-22 11:14:42 +03:00' as the displayed time.
>
> Here we should note that +03 implies a different _precision_ than
> +03:00 or +0300. That's different, even though it might not matter.
I do not think so. Here is the relevant part of the standard, it does not
say that omitting the minutes part of the time zone implies reduced
precision. Indeed, it states that the minutes part "may only be omitted if
the time difference is exactly an integral number of hours"
"5.3.4.1 Difference between local time and Coordinated Universal Time
When it is required to indicate the difference between local time and UTC,
the representation of the difference can be
expressed in hours and minutes, or hours only. It shall be expressed as
positive (i.e. with the leading plus sign [+]) if
the local time is ahead of or equal to UTC and as negative (i.e. with the
leading minus sign [-]) if it is behind UTC. The
minutes component of the difference may only be omitted if the time
difference is exactly an integral number of hours."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jun 23 02:13:45 2002