Anyone who can provide meaningful insight on any of the FTSC documents and currently is a member of the FTSC would be helpful.
MvdV> Wnat action?
Not so much action but confirmation regarding fts-4008.002 and especially the part that states, and I quote;
------------------- quote starts Implementations must NOT put a plus ('+', ASCII 43, 2Bh) in front of the offset for positive numbers, but robust implementations should be prepared to find (and ignore) a plus if it exists. ------------------- quote ends
Given the above is obviously in error about usuage of the '+' character in real world standards for the proper usuage of utc offsets I would appreciate any insight as to why the above quote from fts-4008.002 ought to be adhered to. Any and all robust implimentations I have witnessed in the last couple of decades require either a '+' or '-' character to be considered valid. Offsets such as '0100' will be considered incomplete and produce an error. The above quote is in contradiction to ALL standards currently known to mankind with respect to utc offsets.
I would muchly appreciate any and all illumination as to why fts-4008.002 is considered a valid standard given the breakage it will obviously cause to any and all proper implementations of utc offsets. Also if one were to indeed deploy the '+' character in the TZUTC kludge where appropriate would that be acceptable simply because of the "prepared to find (and ignore) a plus if it exists" part?
MvdV> The FTSC is not an enforcement body
Excellent.
Life is good, Maurice
... A Møøse once bit my sister ... --- GNU bash, version 4.2.45(2)-release (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) * Origin: Pointy Stick Society - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001.0)
