(03 would make more sense but then there would be issues with 12h vs 24h clock)
then they could even express ISO 8601 week number and the corresponding year. Something which is not possible at the moment. Although more difficult to remember it would be 52 and 1999. (For the 2006 it is 01 and 2006 not distinguishable)
Comments
No, the timezone string is messed up:
2006-01-02T15:04:05Z07:00
If they had picked
2000-01-02T15:04:05Z06:00
(03 would make more sense but then there would be issues with 12h vs 24h clock)
then they could even express ISO 8601 week number and the corresponding year. Something which is not possible at the moment. Although more difficult to remember it would be 52 and 1999. (For the 2006 it is 01 and 2006 not distinguishable)