[tz] On merging timezones - a radical proposal.
gunther.vermeir at oracle.com
Thu May 23 15:41:54 UTC 2013
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.
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
> 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
> should always show the same time since 1970. Therefore a city
> *never* moves
> from one timezone to another. If a geographical area should have
> 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
> Time" or "British Summer Time"; let alone "North American Eastern
> (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...
More information about the tz