[88257] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: jISIv
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Tue Sep 14 16:44:18 2010
In-Reply-To: <CE8C1E17-A2A7-45EB-B1AC-302FFC509A58@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:37:25 -0400
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Krenath <krenath@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, given those definitions, I've always understood the concept if a
> time*stamp* to be a fixed, absolute point in time as opposed to a relative
> point or an interval.
>
> As a developer, a timestamp is whatever date/time it was when something
> happened, recorded a an absolute time and date. Such as "2010/09/14
> 14:50:00.000"
>
> I'm still not getting the concept of a relative timestamp. That sounds like
> an oxymoron.
All time stamps are relative. Each has a defined (or understood) reference
point, but not all have the same reference. I assume your example
is describing a moment labeled in the Pacific Time Zone with Daylight
Savings active, but it could easily be UTC. Once you recognize that time
stamps have origins, it shouldn't be hard to accept that "right now" is a
valid default origin, and "next Tuesday" is a valid time stamp.
-- ghunchu'wI'
