kip
Proposal: DateTime.from_iso8601/3 preserves wall date time and applies Etc/GMT±n time zone ID
Sumary of proposal
-
DateTime.from_iso8601/3adjusted to:- set all numeric fields to the values as parsed (not shifted to UTC), preserving wall time.
- set the
:utc_offsetfield to the parsed offset value, - set the
:std_offsetto zero - set the
:time_zonefield toEtc/GMT±n(standard IANA canonical zone names) orEtc/Unknown(reserved by the IANA database to represent unknown time zones) - set the
:zone_abbrfield to±norunk
-
Adjust the implementation of the
UTC-only time zone databaseto include the following zones which are canonical, non-varying offsets from UTC: -
Support these
Etc/GMT±ntime zones inDateTime.shift_zone/2as part of the core library (ie not requiring a time zone database to be configured).
Why this proposal?
ISO8601 is a common standard representation of human-readable dates and time but it does not provide an ability to express time zone other than as an offset from UTC. Since a time zone database is not included in Elixir, the standard library can only create DateTime structs in the Etc/UTC time zone.
This leads to some unexpected results in parsing ISO8601 date time string with DateTime.from_iso8601/3. For example:
iex> {:ok, date_time, _offset} = DateTime.from_iso8601("2025-07-10T23:00:00-01:00")
{:ok, ~U[2025-07-11 00:00:00Z], -3600}
iex> Date.to_string(date_time)
"2025-07-11"
Here we can see that because Elixir has to return a date time in the Etc/UTC time zone, it basically parses the ISO8601 date time then shifts it to the Etc/UTC time zone. Information is not lost - the offset is part of the returned tuple. However this can result in the wall time of the date time changing from the original value in potentially unexpected ways.
Since the Date, Time, NaiveDateTime and DateTime modules accept any map with the relevant fields (a good thing), the change in wall time from the original ISO8601 can lead to surprising results like the above example.
Proposal benefits
- ISO8601 parsed date times can be better represented in Elixir leading to fewer unexpected errors and a more expressive result from parsing.
- The full range of
Etc/GMT±ntime zone names (and their abbreviations) can be represented in the standard library without an external time zone database and date times can be shifted amongst them. - An unknown timezone,
Etc/Unknowncan be applied when parsing an offset with no standard time zone name. This would apply for any offset that has minutes (likeAustralia/Adelaide).
Possible compatibility issues
- The proposal does not change the structure or meaning of any of the fields in
DateTime - The
Etc/Unknownzone is reserved - but does not exists in the IANA time zone database. As a result it can be used with impunity but will result in an error when attempting toDateTime.shift_zone/2. This is also compatible with existing function signatures. - It is possible that some usage depends on
DateTime.from_iso8601/3returning a UTC date time. Although ti should be noted that this is not called out in the function documentation
Most Liked
LostKobrakai
Changing the return value of DateTime.from_iso8601/3 would be a breaking change. So I guess a better option would be DateTime.from_iso8601/4, which an additional parameter / keyword option allows for opting into the new behaviour. It would potentially also allow to switch to a {:ok, datetime} return value over {:ok, datetime, 0}, which would be confusing because there is an offset, just transported on the datetime instead of on the side.
The Etc/GMT±n timezones only support full hour offsets it seems. There are many timezones with offsets not mapping to full hours and their iso8601 values would not be covered by those. So I’m not certain this would be much of a useful addition.
Etc/Unknown generally seems like a reasonable compromise given the (named) timezone is indeed unknown – we only know the offset, but not the timezone it orginiated from. The only question I see is how we handle computations on Etc/Unknown. E.g. UTC-7 offset can be both MST or PDT(daylight saving for PST), so how would DateTime.shift(datetime_offset_minus_7, month: 2) act. It would be ambiguous if that is “supposed” to hit a daylight saving shift or not. We could decide for one or another, but it’s an argument to be had on “correctness” or we could consider this an error case for the operation, which again would be a breaking change to a function signature.
In the end this is a bit of a weird case because we technically have offsets / some notion of a timezone, but any calculations (instead of derivations) made on such datetimes would essentially map to NaiveDateTime in terms of correctness properties.
etoastw
This “offset only” DateTime operates quite differently to ones where the timezone is known (unless it happens to be an Etc/GMT+x zone). In the current state, you can always reconstruct the offset if you need it from the time zone. (i.e. you can pull out a NaiveDateTime and a time zone name, and then put them back together reliably.) Effectively the offset is just there as an optimisation.
With this change you’d have to make sure the offset travels alongside the time zone at all times; and then you need to special case Etc/Unknown and use the offset. It feels like the sort of thing that could just keep dropping new bugs for a while.
Perhaps another module (DateTimeWithOffset or something) could encompass this idea? It’s an approach that the Java time classes take.







