News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601 by zarzavat on Sunday September 07, 2025 @08:13AM (#45157497)
Agreed, offsets are an anti-pattern. Any time you have a nonzero offset you almost certainly want either a tz name (e.g. Europe/Paris), a local datetime, an instant, or a formatted string.
Re:RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601 by burntsushi on Sunday September 07, 2025 @09:10AM (#45157879)
> Datetime + tz name: a point in time and space that is responsive to time zone changes

No. It isn't a point in time, because time zone transition rules can and do change. You need an offset as well. Then you can choose which thing you want to prioritize[1] when converting it to an instant in time.

This is what RFC 9557 is for.

[1]: https://docs.rs/jiff/latest/jiff/tz/enum.OffsetConflict.html

Re:RFC 3339 vs. ISO 8601 by lmm on Sunday September 07, 2025 @09:12AM (#45157889)
What use case is there for preferring the offset (that wouldn't be better served by using instants)?