I'm not directly familiar with FourSquare's API, so I can't confirm or deny this for you. But I can tell you there are often cases where you would use both.
It is ok to only present an offset, if the data represents a particular time. Since the checkin response provides a createdAt
date/time as an integer seconds since epoch (aka a "Unix Timestamp"), then it is appropriate to provide a separate offset. (Although I find it interesting that they provide the offset as a string and not as an integer number of minutes.) The other way you might do this would be with a single DateTimeOffset
values, usually presented in ISO8601 format, as in 2013-06-02T01:23:45-07:00
. Either are acceptable.
But as you may be aware, an offset does not uniquely identify a time zone. In the case of a single event, it doesn't need to. But if it were a recurring event, or if there was a possibility that you might want to modify the time value, then an offset alone would not suffice. That's when you need the full zone identifier.
If you have a zone identifier such as America/New_York
, then you can always find out what the correct offset for any date/time would be. But not everyone has a TZDB implementation readily available. For example, in .Net on Windows, you get Microsoft's clumsy time zone database by default, and you have to find a library (like NodaTime) if you want to use the TZDB zones.
It does seem strange that the push and pull for the same type of action (a check-in) would have different values just because they were going through different APIs. My advice (to Foursquare) would be threefold:
- Be consistent about the data for the same activity, regardless of push vs pull.
- Provide both the TZDB identifier, and the the UTC offset associated with the event.
- Provide the event's timestamp and offset in a single value, as an ISO8601 formatted string, rather than a unix time integer.