It wouldn't really be much different if we had ISO8601.1 and ISO8601.2, would it? The standard can define two different types, and it makes it clear what it means to have a time without an offset specifier. It also defines formats for durations, intervals, and repeating intervals.
Is the distinction in representation too subtle?
We accept this subtlety elsewhere; we are used to 0 and "0" being different things, and expect them to behave differently under operators. Few would find the following surprising:
0 + 0 == 0
"0" + "0" == "00"
Then why would we expect these to behave the same?
Is the distinction in representation too subtle?
We accept this subtlety elsewhere; we are used to 0 and "0" being different things, and expect them to behave differently under operators. Few would find the following surprising:
Then why would we expect these to behave the same? The first is a fixed timestamp in UTC, the result of the second depends on timezone.