Re: [POLL] Proposed syntax for timestamps with time zone info (was: [FEATURE REQUEST] Timezone support in org-mode datestamps and org-agenda)

[Max Nikulin]

On 01/02/2023 16:38, Tim Cross wrote:
> This, combined with the reduced readability of such
> time stamps and increased possibility of user confusion leads me to
> question if allowing time stamps with both offset and time zone together
> in the one time stamp is worthwhile.

Readability should not suffer if time offset is optional. It may be 
omitted for non-ambiguous local time. Time offset may even improve 
readability if you are looking at a timestamp with time zone unknown to you.

Sterling posted the following links (originating from the same group):
https://tc39.es/proposal-temporal/docs/ambiguity.html
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended/

What I do not like is that disambiguation is option of conversion, not 
of timestamp.

> For instance, it does not address:
>
>    *  Future time given as a local time in some specified time zone,
>       where changes to the definition of that time zone (e.g., a
>       political decision to enact or rescind daylight saving time)
>       affect the instant in time corresponding with the timestamp.

In this sense I like Python's approach with fold=1 or fold=2 despite in 
general JavaScript Temporal proposal looks more flexible.
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0495/