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
something like:

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
> principles
> > 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
> case
> > 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.
> Cheers,
> Philip
> --
> Philip Newton <philip.newton at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/attachments/20110104/72119275/attachment.htm>

More information about the tz mailing list