proposed tz patches for Indiana, New Brunswick, Gaza, etc.
goldsmit at apple.com
Sat Jan 21 02:58:49 UTC 2006
For my deadline, I went with the letter of the law. We'll pick up
whatever the final decision is later on.
On Jan 20, 2006, at 6:46 PM, Paul Schauble wrote:
> I am inclined to think you should implement the letter of the law
> than guessing what DOT "really" meant. Either that or ask DOT for
> clarification. I hate to say it, but I've been involved in similar
> that became a legal issue and the difference can matter.
> Unfortunately, this conflicts with the deadline. Maybe I'm a bit
> but I'd ask.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tz-request at elsie.nci.nih.gov [mailto:tz-
> request at elsie.nci.nih.gov] On
> Behalf Of Deborah Goldsmith
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 7:08 PM
> To: tz at lecserver.nci.nih.gov
> Subject: Re: proposed tz patches for Indiana, New Brunswick, Gaza,
> On Jan 20, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> + -5:00 - EST 2006 Apr 2 2:00
>> + -6:00 US C%sT
> For all the Indiana counties that are switching from ET to CT,
> this be:
> + -5:00 - EST 2006 Apr 2 2:00
> + -5:00 - CDT 2006 Apr 2 3:00
> + -6:00 US C%sT
> so that the time will proceed smoothly from 1:59:59 AM EST to
> 2:00:00 AM
> CDT, as proposed by Paul Eggert?
> With the rules the way they are now, the time will go from 1:59:59
> AM EST to
> 1:00:00 AM CST, then from 1:59:59 AM CST to 3:00:00 AM CDT.
> Personally, I'm fine either way.
More information about the tz