Re: [Qlandkartegt-users] Timestamps in Tracklogs
Brought to you by:
kiozen
From: <j...@ur...> - 2009-12-20 22:42:29
|
Helmut Schmidt <hs...@ar...> wrote: > One observation (a minor bug maybe?): I did not see any difference > in behaviour between selecting "Local Time" or "UTC". You'll only notice it after actually applying the filter. Normally, the entire display is in your wall clock time, and thus, the timestamp edit field is also using wall clock time. However, for those folks who'd like to anonymize a track by shifting it back to the Unix Epoch (1970-01-01T00:00:00 UTC), the modification obviously has to be applied as UTC. Just try making this modification, and then reselect "local time", and apply the change to see where it makes a difference. > I'd like to change the way the track time is displayed, not the track > time itself. The unfortunate thing about this is that this all relies on Qt, and Qt relies on your timezone settings and your operating system to translate this. There's no real way to tell an application to behave like being in Central European Time for displaying one track, but relocating itself to Indian Summer Time for displaying another track. It should be possible to add some kind of display offset though, which essentially covers most of your wishes, except of not catching the more esoteric things (like different DST switchover dates back in history, possibly years ago). > Note: I noticed with pleasure that you correctly consider daylight > saving time according to the date the track was taken. This is a basic feature of the underlying OS's time zone system that is essentially used then by Qt. For Unix-like systems, this is usually an implementation of the "Olson timezone database", which has been collecting even historical DST behaviour for many years now. So, if you were able to dig up an old track from the era when Germany didn't yet follow the US-American rule of switching back from DST by end of October (but end of September instead), it should still display correctly. > The format in which date/time are > displayed (e.g. "Sa 28.Nov 09:31:42 2009", i.e. time surrounded by date) > however appears quite strange to me. I always prefer a format which > allows a lexical sorting, e.g. "2009-11-28 09:31:42". Oliver already explained that. However, in order to promote the use of ISO 8601, I think we might perhaps even modify that in a way so it defaults to ISO 8601, with an option to user-select the current behaviour (which is locale-dependent). The only difference between ISO 8601 and your variant is that the ISO system uses a "T" between date and time, so it ends up as "2009-11-28T09:31:42". -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) |