Update for Asia/Calcutta timezone
Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Wed Jan 5 01:06:53 UTC 2011
I agree. Once we have a city in that zone, let's leave it be.
BTW, I don't think a city can ever 'leave' a zone. The zone could split, but
part of it would still contain the city (assuming no disaster that wipes the
city away completely).
Take a hypothetical: let's suppose that Southern California seceded from the
United States. Even in that situation I think what should happen is
US +340308-1181434 America/Los_Angeles Pacific Time
SC +340308-1181434 America/Los_Angeles
US +374736-1223317 America/San_Francisco Pacific Time
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 14:00, Philip Newton <philip.newton at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 22:57, Paul Eggert <eggert at cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> > But capitals change too (for example, Kazakhstan). No naming principle
> > will work everywhere, and it's probably better to stick with the
> > that we have. The question here is when one principle (use the
> most-populous city)
> > should override another one (avoid name changes). It's not a slam-dunk
> > either way, which is why I asked for further comments.
> FWIW, I'd favour the "avoid name changes" principle.
> There are a number of zones which have "the wrong" name (typically
> this means "not the current capital"). As long as the city stays in
> the zone, I'd tend to keep it.
> Philip Newton <philip.newton at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tz