[tz] On merging timezones - a radical proposal.

[gunther vermeir]

+1

If there is indeed an "easier to maintain gain" by simply linking 
certain time zones to one that has the same definition , no problems 
there. Aldo I doubt to see much added value in doing so, most likely it 
are rather stable definitions anyway.
While the "official" boundary is 1970 I would personally not want to get 
rid of any historical info (pre 1970) that is already there if this is done.

Gunther

On 23/05/2013 16:25, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> While there have been a flurry of proposals on this list, the current 
> process and format has worked just fine for many years. For every 
> person pleased by any of these proposals, I strongly suspect there 
> will be at least one other displeased—and probably many. (The people 
> who are likely to complain are also more likely to be members of this 
> list, while those who are content with the current system are less 
> likely.)
>
> So on the principle that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", we'd be 
> better off just leaving the system as is.
>
>
> Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
> /
> /
> /— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —/
> //
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Clive D.W. Feather <clive at davros.org 
> <mailto:clive at davros.org>> wrote:
>
>     random832 at fastmail.us <mailto:random832 at fastmail.us> said:
>     > Why do we have zones that track _cities'_ movements from one
>     timezone to
>     > another?
>
>     We don't.
>
>     We *define* a timezone as being a geographical area where all the
>     clocks
>     should always show the same time since 1970. Therefore a city
>     *never* moves
>     from one timezone to another. If a geographical area should have
>     clocks
>     showing different times in (say) April 1996, then that area
>     contains more
>     than one time zone.
>
>     We do *NOT* use "timezone" to refer to *concepts* like "Eastern
>     Standard
>     Time" or "British Summer Time"; let alone "North American Eastern
>     Time".
>     (I think we have GMT+/-N zones, but that's because they are used
>     at sea and
>     so have geographic meaning.)
>
>     We could add such zones, but these would be *additional*
>     timezones. A city
>     would not move from the NACT zone to the NAET zone; rather, it
>     remains in
>     its own zone, which shows the same time as NACT before the
>     transition date
>     and the same time as NAET after it.
>
>     --
>     Clive D.W. Feather          | If you lie to the compiler,
>     Email: clive at davros.org <mailto:clive at davros.org>   | it will get
>     its revenge.
>     Web: http://www.davros.org  |   - Henry Spencer
>     Mobile: +44 7973 377646 <tel:%2B44%207973%20377646>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/attachments/20130523/9a83a787/attachment.html