[tz] Proposal to change Macquarie Island to be Australian territory

Tim Thornton tt at smartcomsoftware.com
Thu Apr 18 11:39:11 UTC 2013

As far as I know, in tz there is no definition of the extents of Antarctica,
and tz locations have just been put into whichever region seems best at the
time. If I'm right on this, there is no zone to move as it isn't defined.
All I'm suggesting is that where there is debate on which zone a location
should be in, or if a new location is required, this is probably as good an
approach as any to resolve the issue.

Smartcom Software Ltd
Portsmouth Technopole
Kingston Crescent
Portsmouth PO2 8FA
United Kingdom


Smartcom Software is a limited company registered in England and Wales,
registered number 05641521.

-----Original Message-----
From: Clive D.W. Feather [mailto:clive at davros.org] 
Sent: 18 April 2013 11:35
To: Tim Thornton
Cc: rra at stanford.edu; tz at iana.org
Subject: Re: [tz] Proposal to change Macquarie Island to be Australian

Tim Thornton said:
> Regarding in which region an island lies, a good approach is probably 
> to refer to the IHO (International Hydrographic Organisation) 
> publication S-23 on the limits of oceans and seas.
> So I would propose that any TZ data south of 60S, which means that 
> Macquarie Island does not fall in to Antarctica.

If this was a new zone, I think I'd agree with you.

But given that it's an existing zone, what is the benefit of moving the zone
rather than leaving it alone? I'd want to see a compelling reason for the
move, not just a "we've decided to use a new definition of 'Antarctica'".

Clive D.W. Feather          | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: clive at davros.org     | it will get its revenge.
Web: http://www.davros.org  |   - Henry Spencer
Mobile: +44 7973 377646

More information about the tz mailing list