[tz] EST/EDT vs AEST/AEDT in AQ [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
tim at timtimeonline.com
Fri Apr 12 15:20:32 UTC 2013
On 12 April 2013 10:57, Tobias Conradi <mail.2012 at tobiasconradi.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Tim Parenti <tim at timtimeonline.com>
> > On 12 April 2013 04:45, Tobias Conradi <mail.2012 at tobiasconradi.com>
> >> D for %s never means anything else than 1:00 saving.
> > Within the current tz database, sure, that is presently the case. But
> > is not necessarily the case within ACTUAL practice;
> Sure, actual practice in the IANA time zone database.
> > "D" could conceivably be
> > used to refer to a DST offset of any amount, since it is still "daylight
> > saving time", just of a different amount.
> Against actual practice in the IANA time zone database, deteriorating
> usability for those that rely use systematization.
It would appear you misunderstood or misinterpreted my statements. The
ONLY "actual practice" which is relevant is the actual practice on the
ground, independent of tz. If I understood your statement correctly, this
is the opposite of what you said.
> > To be clear, I haven't seen any evidence either way, but I
> > don't particularly believe any residents of Lord Howe Island would call
> > "Lord Howe half-daylight time", because to them, half an hour is a full
> > transition.
> Does that matter?
As above, yes. What the locals call it should be the ONLY practice that
matters. While I am sympathetic to your desires for broader
systematization, it is not the aim of this project.
> > I am not making the argument here that the terminology is used this way
> > Australia/Lord_Howe; only that if it is, then LHDT is a perfectly
> > (and indeed, preferred) abbreviation for UTC+10:30+0:30 as observed
> there in
> > the summer.
> Why? For other regions the database does not care at all about local
> usage and will certainly fail in bilingual environments.
> > On 12 April 2013 04:22, Tobias Conradi <tobias.conradi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > We are not inventing anything new
> >> It has been proven you do in the scope of the DB.
> > I have not been part of this project for very long, but I believe most of
> > the "invented" abbreviations have been simply to fulfill POSIX
> > where no commonly-used English terminology previously existed.
> POSIX requirements for abbreviations can be fulfilled without English
> terminology. E.g. WIT could mean Waktu Indonesia Timur (Eastern
> Indonesian Time) instead of IANA used English Western Indonesia Time.
> The English speaking countries largely get their way through with
> locally used abbreviations, whilst needs and wishes of others are
Again, I haven't been around for long, but according to my understanding of
this project's history, it is solely an English-language project.
Localization issues are outside of its scope.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tz