11706 2011-01-09 17:13:47 +0000 Why -00:00 instead of +00:00 when time zone is UTC? 2011-08-04 05:13:30 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified Other other RESOLVED FIXED http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#best-representation-of-the-global-date-and-time-string P3 normal --- 1 contributor ian ayg ian mike mounir philipj public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 43965 0 contributor 2011-01-09 17:13:47 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/common-microsyntaxes.html Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#best-representation-of-the-global-date-and-time-string Comment: Why -00:00 instead of +00:00 when time zone is UTC? Posted from: 81.234.240.182 by philip@foolip.org 43966 1 philipj 2011-01-09 17:42:54 +0000 This looks a bit odd and is quite annoying as it makes it very difficult to use any existing software to generate this normalized format. Examples: * UNIX: date -u "+%:z" gives "+00:00" * C: printf("%+03d\n", 0) gives "+00" * Python: str(t) where t is a datetime.time and t.tzinfo.utcoffset() returns 0 gives e.g. "18:40:12+00:00" These are just the cases I've encountered, I'm sure the list of things that uses + for 0 can be made very long. 45747 2 ian 2011-02-17 02:07:29 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Accepted Change Description: see diff given below Rationale: It was a mistake. -00:00 is actually disallowed because some RFC give it special meaning. 45748 3 contributor 2011-02-17 02:08:14 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r5903. Check-in comment: The best representation of something should really be a valid one too. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5902&to=5903 45758 4 philipj 2011-02-17 09:28:03 +0000 Great, thanks! I was afraid this was another case of being deliberately different to "encourage" people to implement the spec from scratch, glad it wasn't so. 53402 5 mike 2011-08-04 05:13:30 +0000 mass-move component to LC1