> It even solves the serialization issue of the difference between a "fixed-offset" timestamp (e.g. 2025-01-01T00:00+02:00) and one in a specific timezone (e.g. Europe/Paris).
Could you elaborate on that? What is the issue?
Could you elaborate on that? What is the issue?
Europe/Paris is political. It defines that offsets change at certain times of the year, but that could change tomorrow, or the political boundary that the timezone applies to could split such that the person or entity needing a time in their "local" timezone finds another one needs to be picked (see various US states/counties applying/disapplying daylight savings).
It's impossible to be 100% confident what the offset from UTC will be at any time in the future. You also need to be a historian to correctly apply it to times in the past - take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_the_Republic_of_Irelan... as an example!
but that'll possibly give you an incorrect time!
If you want to store "8am in Paris on the 2026-01-01", then you store "2026-01-01T08:00:00 Europe/Paris". Great, if Paris decides to change their offset rules, that's fine.
Currently, that would be `2026-01-01T08:00:00+01:00` but if Paris decide to ditch DST, it could become `2026-01-01T08:00:00+00:00`. All good, you stored a timezone rather than an offset, so you're decoupled from the timezone->offset changes.
But if tomorrow `Europe/Paris` cease to exist, and is replaced with Europe/NewNewYork? The last definition of Europe/Paris would make this date `2026-01-01T08:00:00+01:00`, but if Europe/NewNewYork ditched DST then it wouldn't be 8am for the people living there, it'd be 7am.
You're decoupled from the timezone->offset changes, but not from location->timezone changes.
See https://github.com/eggert/tz/blob/main/backward for all the deprecated zones.
https://medium.com/servicios-a0/on-solving-the-tzdb-changes-...
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-canonical-tz - appropriately to these comments, a proposal to handle tzdb changes, built on top of JS Temporal, includes some great examples of all the ways this can happen
Thanks! I was the co-champion of that proposal. Parts of it were merged into Temporal last year, and other parts are already part of the JS Internationalization (ECMA-402) specification here: https://tc39.es/ecma402/#sec-use-of-iana-time-zone-database
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tz_database
--
By the way, I looked up the time zone in Crimea.
> On 29 March 2014, after annexation by Russia, Crimea switched from Eastern European Time (UTC+02:00) to Moscow Time (UTC+04:00 then, subsequently changed to UTC+03:00). [2]
Crimea has its own zone in the IANA database, Europe/Simferopol, which was updated in 2014 (and already existed before, as it already used Moscow time from 1994 to 1997). [3]
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Ukraine
[3] https://lists.iana.org/hyperkitty/list/tz@iana.org/thread/DS...; https://github.com/eggert/tz/commit/bb203f1bb0b6cd4bb2b08f25...; https://github.com/eggert/tz/blob/bb203f1bb0b6cd4bb2b08f2560...
Hopefully the British would be kind enough to email the TZ DB group at the IANA (tz@iana.org) a couple years in advance of the legislation to change the name so that the group can get started on collecting the DST rules for Europe/NewNewYork. Some people and devices will probably stick to Europe/Paris out of habit and/or resistance to the change, so the TZ DB would probably be unlikely to remove it, but they may point references from it to Europe/NewNewYork as the new "canonical" name. Plenty of the DB entries are just pointers to other entries already today, for one instance it was decided that America/City and Europe/City maybe is too conflicted a namespace and we see increasingly more "the canonical name is America/State/City" or "the canonical name is Europe/Country/City".
Sol3/CA/Toronto
I'd also like all 50 state capitols (and possibly also their largest city) to exist as E.G.
Sol3/US/WA-Olympia and Sol3/US/WA-Seattle (respectively to the above; I don't know Canadian provinces that well)
Sol3 is a prefix for the 3rd planet (starting ordinal 1, but anything in the orbit of Sol can be Sol0) in our solar system. It's also nicely short so easy to type out in command lines.
Every state _should_ have it's own TZ file, even if it's just an alias. That's a good forward compatible way of allowing the same config to work if future legislative efforts produce or remove timezones. It would also allow E.G. Arizona's non DST timezone to remain correctly configured in some future where the US finally ends the nightmare of DST forever.
Country largely just makes sense to disambiguate cases like the two different cities a few hundred km apart both named Vancouver.
Use case: Configure device for customer in another state, OK like the mailing address state 2 letter code is XX what city? Oh there's a choice of two. The one I've heard of is probably the biggest city. Either way, it comes out OK.
What if you don't know what state something is in? Sol3/US/*City should shell expand on command lines.
Some timezone identifiers have changed, e.g. Asia/Calcutta to Asia/Kolkata in 2008 and Europe/Kiev to Europe/Kyiv in 2022. But the TZ DB maintainers are rather reluctant to make such changes, and require “long-time widespread use of the new city name” in English before deciding so.
The naming conventions for timezone identifiers are written out at https://ftp.iana.org/tz/tzdb-2022b/theory.html#naming
>> zdt = Temporal.ZonedDateTime.from("2024-03-09T17:00-05[US/Eastern]")
>> zdt.add("P1d").toString()
"2024-03-10T17:00:00-04:00[US/Eastern]"
>> zdt.add("PT24h").toString()
"2024-03-10T18:00:00-04:00[US/Eastern]"
>> zdt = Temporal.ZonedDateTime.from("2024-03-09T17:00-05[-05]")
>> zdt.add("P1d").toString()
"2024-03-10T17:00:00-05:00[-05:00]"
>> zdt.add("PT24h").toString()
"2024-03-10T17:00:00-05:00[-05:00]"
It's a really well thought out RFC: the offset, the civil time zone name, and a flag for whether that civil time zone is critical information can all be stored, and an inconsistency marked critical MUST be acted upon by the application explicitly, either by rejecting or requesting user interaction.
This may seem redundant, but it's really important to answer "what happens if I have a future timestamp stored, and the USA suddenly rejects daylight savings time. Do I honor the absolute point in time, or do I honor the notion of 5pm?"
Unfortunately, there's going to be a lot of chaos if this happens. Systems like Postgres only store the absolute point in time, normalized to UTC, despite what the name "timestamp with time zone" might imply; an application team or DBA making a decision about this might need to look at other domain-specific metadata e.g. the physical location of the associated asset to determine whether to add or remove an hour. I shudder to think about what this might imply for e.g. HIPAA protected medical systems; the impact of the ensuing bugs might be measured in lives.
> This may seem redundant, but it's really important to answer "what happens if I have a future timestamp stored, and the USA suddenly rejects daylight savings time. Do I honor the absolute point in time, or do I honor the notion of 5pm?"
Yeah! It's great that Temporal rejects by default, but does let you override that and choose whether to respect the instant or respect to the civil time. And it lets you do that with a high level configuration knob. You don't have to code up the logic yourself.
What's even crazier is that writing plain TIMESTAMP gets you TIMESTAMP WITHOUT TIME ZONE, as is also mandated by the standard (the Postgres docs call this one out specifically). And that behaviour can be summarized as: not only don't store the timezone, but also ignore the timezone you get given.
For example, I'm on GMT/UTC right now, and I see this:
select '2025-01-30T12:00:00-0800'::timestamp with time zone; -- 2025-01-30 20:00:00+00
select '2025-01-30T12:00:00-0800'::timestamp; -- 2025-01-30 12:00:00I don't think that completely absolves PostgreSQL though. It seems like they could add things to improve the situation and de-emphasize the use of TIMESTAMP and TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE. But I am not a database or PostgreSQL expert, and there are assuredly trade-offs with doing this.
But yes, absolutely, the fact that TIMESTAMP is not just a timestamp without a time zone, but is actually a civil time is also equal parts crazytown. Like, a timestamp is 100% an instant in time. It is physical time. A number of seconds since an epoch. But PostreSQL (or the SQL standard) interprets it as a civil time? It's ludicrous and has assuredly confused countless humans. Especially those among us who don't know enough to question that PostgreSQL (or the SQL standard) might have gotten it wrong in the first place.
It's always seemed reasonable to me. Sure, "TIMESTAMP WITH UTC OFFSET" would be even clearer -- but, as has been pointed out already, there are 2 valid ways you might want to handle time addition/subtraction, and only one of those ways enables addition to be done without pure speculation on what decisions will be made by political entities in the future, and PostgreSQL does it that way.
And it's not even a timestamp with a UTC offset! It's just a Unix timestamp.
If you think the current naming is "reasonable," then we are likely living in two different planes of existence. And no amount of back-and-forth over the Internet is going to help. This is a level of dissonance that requires an in-person discussion in the pub to resolve.
(there's also https://github.com/mweber26/timestampandtz which is delightfully simple, 33 commits, last one 7 years ago)
most often it is "most often" that causes bugs in software. And when related to date/time it often are severe bugs. ;-)
Wednesday January 2st 1908 00:00 clocks were turned forward 28 minutes to 00:28. So an entire 28 minutes of time never eexisted in Iceland even thought today they are on UTC year round and one might think they are the best and easiest country to handle timezone wise.
Those two facts aren’t connected. At the time that those 28 minutes were skipped, Iceland was using the equivalent of UTC-01:00.
on this particular instant, in Iceland, 28 minutes were skipped because Iceland changed from the offset of Reykjavik’s mean solar time, rounded to the nearest minute (UTC–1:28) to the offset of Reykjavik’s mean solar time, rounded to the nearest hour (UTC–1).
So only from that moment on, Iceland was using UTC–1.
The 28 minutes jump is likely Iceland coming into alignment with GMT, for much the same reasons as Ireland did; to improve trade and commerce in a world now using telegraphs, telephones and trains. We're ok becoming disconnected from mean solar time in order to connect more with each other.
Samoa skipped a day in 2011, jumping from UTC−11:00 to UTC+13:00, so that it could align with Australia and New Zealand, its biggest trading partners -- so Australia's Friday is also Samoa's Friday.
We'll always have discontinuities in civil timekeeping, as it's there to serve the whims of humans, not the other way around.
Temporal fixes this by using RFC 9557[1], which includes the time zone in the serialized representation. RFC 9557 is a superset of RFC 3339. So where as previously you might just emit `2025-06-20T17:00:00+02:00`, using RFC 9557, you would emit `2025-06-20T17:00:00+02:00[Europe/Paris]`. For example, using Temporal:
>> instant = Temporal.Instant.from('2025-06-20T17:00:00+02')
>> zdt = instant.toZonedDateTimeISO("Europe/Paris")
>> zdt.toJSON()
"2025-06-20T17:00:00+02:00[Europe/Paris]"
You can read more about this at https://tc39.es/proposal-temporal/docs/zoneddatetime.html and search for "conflict". There's an example about Brazil abolishing DST in 2019 that should lay it out for you.
Separately from even this, there are other concerns. If you forget to include the time zone in your serialization and then just deserialize it as a simple timestamp, then it makes it very easy for arithmetic on that value to be wrong because it won't be DST safe (unless you're careful to reconstitute its time zone somehow). With Temporal and RFC 9557, all of that is handled for you automatically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_the_Republic_of_Irelan...
To be clear, I might be misunderstanding what you're saying. So that's why I'm asking for a concrete example. That will cut through everything. And if you didn't, I would strongly suggest you take a look at https://tc39.es/proposal-temporal/docs/zoneddatetime.html and search for "conflict". I think that will help explain things.
> I get that it’s more correct
We can chase perfection, but perfection isn't the goal. All models are wrong, but some are useful. In other words, the question isn't whether Temporal's model of interaction with time is wrong (it is!), it's how wrong it is and what its impact is that matters.
The way this works is by looking at offsets. Think of a time zone as a function mapping between civil time and physical time. Or, another way to think about it is a mapping from a civil time to an offset (which may not exist for gaps or may not be unique for folds) and a mapping from physical time to an offset (of which there is a bijection). With RFC 9557, you encode both the offset and the time zone into the serialized representation. Consider a case when you encode an offset corresponding to DST, and then DST is abolished. Your tzdb is updated. Then you go to deserialize this datetime. Its offset no longer matches the rules. This can be detected and Temporal reports an error. This is all explained in the docs.
Note that DST is only an example here, because it's a common manifestation of how this error arises. But it can happen with any change in offset.
So if you're in 1760 and you write down a datetime in the future using the rules of that time (of which, I'm not even sure that's a sensible question to ask), then you'd have a particular offset encoded in that future datetime. Now fast forward to the future and the rules have changed and are no longer consistent with the offset encoded in the datetime. Thus, you get an error.
Here's another take on the idea that I wrote for Jiff: https://docs.rs/jiff/latest/jiff/tz/enum.OffsetConflict.html
Think of it like this. In an RFC 9557 timestamp, you have an offset and you have a time zone. Those two pieces of information may be inconsistent with one another. For example, `2025-01-30T17:00+10[US/Eastern]`. When that happens, you can report an error. That's pretty much it.
> then the meaning of the instant is different because now there’s 2 different `2025-06-20T17:00:00+02[Europe/Dublin]` and which one you get will depend on when you deserialize.
If the region adjusted their close back by 15 minutes, then the offset would change. As for `2025-06-20T17:00:00+02[Europe/Dublin]`, it can only feasibly have two different interpretations: you can either interpret it as the instant `2025-06-20T17:00:00+02`, or you can interpret it as the civil time `2025-06-20T17:00:00` in the time zone `Europe/Dublin`, ignoring the offset. Or you can reject it. Temporal supports all of these modes, and it will by default reject such strings when the offset and time zone are inconsistent.
(There's a fourth mode, "prefer offset," that I won't get into here... It's not usually used for deserialization/parsing.)
1. Past dates. These can be stored UTC, and just rendered in the appropriate timezone as a matter of formatting.
2. Future non-human dates: e.g. the next execution time of a job that runs every hour. These can just be UTC
3. Future human dates: I care about the human selected timezone so that events happen on the wall clock time the user expects. The UTC time and UTC offset are meaningless.
So in cases 1 and 2, having a non-UTC date is not required, while for case 3, the only thing that UTC offset is doing is adding information that could be inconsistent or confusing.
e.g. If the concert is on at 2026-01-31T18:00:00[Europe/Dublin] , that's all that matters, whether that ends up being 2026-01-31T18:00:00+00:00 or 2026-01-31T18:00:00+01:00 is unimportant for whether the building is going to be open at the time. So the system failing to give customers on the day of the concert a countdown because `2026-01-31T18:00:00+00:00[Europe/Dublin]` has become inconsistent because e.g. the EU actually did go ahead and abolish DST is suboptimal.
But if you know your use cases and know you always want to adhere to civil time even if it means a change in the precise instant, then Temporal supports that too:
>> zdt = Temporal.ZonedDateTime.from("2025-06-20T17:00+08[US/Eastern]")
Uncaught RangeError: Offset +08:00 is invalid for 2025-06-20T17:00:00 in US/Eastern
InterpretISODateTimeOffset ecmascript.mjs:1467
ToTemporalZonedDateTime ecmascript.mjs:1531
from zoneddatetime.mjs:478
<anonymous> debugger eval code:1
>> zdt = Temporal.ZonedDateTime.from("2025-06-20T17:00+08[US/Eastern]", {offset: 'ignore'})
>> zdt.toString()
"2025-06-20T17:00:00-04:00[US/Eastern]"
If the only operation you need is formatting, then I agree, you can apply the time zone to the instant right before it's displayed. But there are many other operations (such as arithmetic or computing durations between datetimes) you might want to do that do required a time zone. You might still be able to get away with only storing a UTC date, but it really depends on what you're doing.
That's part of why they are tied to a certain city -- time zone rules are unlikely to bisect a city, although if they did I guess they'd have to deprecate it as a timezone name and use something else! Not sure if this has ever happened.
All of this is kept track of in the IANA Time Zone database, and labels like `Europe/Paris` are from keys into that database, not arbitrary. https://www.iana.org/time-zones
Sometimes when jurisdictions do weird stuff like changing their rules for (say) when Daylight Savings starts with no notice (effective tomorrow!), the libraries can take a bit of time to catch up and be correct again (and have the new version be distributed to all users).
But keeping track of (say) that America/New York on March 25 2024 is UTC-4 but March 2025 1990 is UTC-5 hours (they changed when Daylight Savings started in between those years) is absolutely something current (eg OS) time libraries do.
As well as keeping track of the gregorian correction in (depending on country) October 1582 (skipping over 10 days in the calendar!), when calculating historical intervals. They really do this, already!
That's why you say "Europe/Paris" or "America/New York" instead of "UTC-5", to let the library figure out the rules for offsets at that location on the time specified.
I assume Temporal will do the same. JS environments are usually running on OS's that will already provide this service, the browser or other execution environment won't have to implement it from scratch. Although I think moment.js did it from scratch, and distributes a timezone database with moment.js packages.
Which libraries do this? Libraries usually implement proleptic calendars, including Temporal[1], which specifically do not account for shifts like this. And indeed, the Temporal docs even call out this specific example.
(I agree with the rest of your comment!)
[1]: https://tc39.es/proposal-temporal/docs/calendars.html#handli...
Ruby DateTime does it, I hadn't realized it was unusual, if it is!
Here it is particularly called out in documentation with example taking account that April 23rd 1616 in England was not the same day as April 23rd 1616 in Italy, and DateTime knows that! https://ruby-doc.org/stdlib-2.6.1/libdoc/date/rdoc/DateTime....
(That class however is using weird "Date::ENGLAND" constants for locale instead of ISO timezone locales, which is a legacy mistake!)
(I work in archiving cultural history, so probably deal with pre-19th century dates a lot more than the average coder)
update: I was curious what would happen if I gave DateTime a non-existent date...
DateTime.iso8601('1752-09-05', Date::ENGLAND) => invalid date (Date::Error)
it knows! (England skipped some days in September 1752 as part of Gregorian adjustment)
But I guess ruby is unusual there! Or I'm wrong.
But good to know most have it as opt-in, anyway!
(FWIW, I'm the author of a datetime library in Rust called Jiff.)
It's actually easier to create this problem than by bisecting a city, and the easier way is even more complex than bisecting a city.
You obviously can't put every hamlet, town and village into tzdb, for a lot of reasons. So, if you're trying to represent a time in a place that isn't in tzdb, you have to pick the nearest location that is in tzdb. And it's quite possible that between when you enter your time and when that time comes to pass, the location you were specifying for changes it's rules in a way that's different from the original place you chose.
If you bisect a city, you could create two new names, so that if you encountered the old name you'd know that something needed to be reconciled. But if you chose the nearest place and then your rules changed, you'd have no way to know automatically that it needed to be revisited.
For example, parts of Chile decided not to do DST any more. To support this, a new timezone, America/Punta_Arenas, was added to tzdb. Before this, if you were in Punta Arenas, you would just put all your times as America/Santiago. And now you have no way of knowing if those times are really supposed to be Santiago or if they were Punta Arenas and Santiago was just the best you could do at the time.
Location-based tz's are the best we can do right now but even still they have intractable problems when things change.
For dates in the past it isn't much of a problem. `America/[city in chile]` in the past (created before the change, refering to times before the change) still has a specific point-in-time meaning even when things change.
The problem is dates records created in the past but referring to times in the future. Which could now be ambiguous or wrong... and this is the first time I'm thinking about it, I'm not sure how easy it is to detect, I guess it should be detectable which dates may be ambiguous/wrong if you know the date of their creation (before the change was known), but it would take caring to write guards about it and having access to databases with sufficient info.
Right - date-times in the past are always easy (at least until you have to take relativity into account). An event happened at some instant in the universe and you just need an agreed upon representation of that instant. UTC works fine for this - record the UTC-based instant at which the event happened and you can always translate it into any other representation without losing information. Recording it in your local timezone is fine too, as long as you also record the UTC offset or timezone along with the instant.
> I guess it should be detectable which dates may be ambiguous/wrong if you know the date of their creation (before the change was known)
Yeah - in theory, when a timezone is added, you could probably link it to timezones that users of the new timezone might have previously used. And then any future times that were saved using that timezone, you ask someone if they are still correct or if the timezone needs to be adjusted to the new one
For example, if a new timezone was added for southeast Colorado, you might ask someone about all times scheduled in both the Denver & Phoenix timezones, because you don't know which one people might have picked.
It gets complicated though because you need to keep track of which entries have been double checked and which ones haven't, and you need to keep track of the version of tzdb that you reconciled against, because there could be another change in the future.
Programmatically it mostly means you have to ship metadata about how the offsets change over time, which needs to be updated periodically. Browsers already ship that metadata, so it is really nice to finally have a way to access it from JavaScript without shipping the extra few tens of kilobytes.