On 2019 Mar 22 17:49:08, you wrote to me:

 ON> Found this document, which also shows using simplified UTC, and "+" is
 ON> dropped:

 ON> fsc-0084.001:
 ON>   The UTC offset of the site that generated timestamp as described above
 ON>   is stored in the utcoffset field. Eg: if the UTC offset is -0230, the
 ON>   utcoffset field should read, simply, -230; +0200 => 200; and so forth.

that's in the reference library for historical purposes... it was written in
1995 and is for EDX (Electronic Data eXchange)... other documents may have some
 parts derived from it but it is not in force in any way... there may be some
systems that have implemented EDX but i'm not aware of any... a quick scan
seems to indiate that it is kinda of another packet or packed message type... i
 remember reading it years back when it first came out but wasn't interested in
 it to any real point...

the documents that matter are FTS and FSP... FTS are standards whereas FSP are
standards proposals... FSPs will never make it to standards if they are not
implemented and ""widely used""... but just because there's not a standard or a
 proposal shouldn't prevent a developer from coming up with something new that
works well and is ""widely used""... when that happens, someone will generally
write a proposal documenting it... that someone may be the developer, another
party interested in the thing or it may be written by the FTSC as a group
project... as a proposal, it is then available for others to read and possibly
implement without having to reverse engineer the thing or querying the
developer of it... if something in the proposal is incorrect, it can be updated
 easily... the same for standards, too... they are not really set in stone like
 RFCs...

i forget what FSC stood for but IIRC they were proposals before the new format
and naming conventions were adopted by the 2nd or 3rd FTSC... FSP is clearer
than FSC for indicating a proposal... they are of interest to some folks but
they are old documents...

something else is that software documentation generally states what standards
and proposals it implements and supports... not all standards and proposals
have to be implemented... an example of this is the two formats of TZUTC that
are floating about... one is a standard... the other is not... the software
implementing the other format does not state that it has implemented the TZUTC
proposal or standard... granted, using a different control word would have been
 better but that wasn't done... i cannot say if one is better than the other,
either... i only know that both are in the wild...

)\/(ark

Always Mount a Scratch Monkey
Do you manage your own servers? If you are not running an IDS/IPS yer doin' it
wrong...
... tobaco free, soon YOU and me, what a wonderful way to be ;*)
---
 * Origin:  (1:3634/12.73)