[tz] [PROPOSED PATCH 1/4] Prefer +-NN notation for UT-offset time zones in comments.

[Random832]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016, at 12:23, Steve Allen wrote:
> On Wed 2016-08-24T09:56:09 -0400, Tim Parenti hath writ:
> > I understand the partial motivation behind getting rid of the need to
> > specify UTC±N, UT±N, and GMT±N, which do have differences, but I agree with
> > the general sentiment expressed here that this negatively affects the
> > readability of our commentary.
> 
> I agree about the readability, but I'm not sure what is best.
> Furthermore, in some countries some of those different notations
> are legally correct and others are not.  Some multi-lingual countries 
> use different terms in the versions of their law written in the 
> different languages.

I'm not sure how important it is for the comments to be "legally
correct", other than when directly quoting the laws. And ±N doesn't seem
to me to be *more* "legally correct", it's just less readable to no
clear purpose.

> Preprint 662 at the 2011 Future of UTC colloquium
> http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/2011/preprints/index.html
> and preprint 505 at the 2013 Future of UTC colloquium
> http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/preprints/index.html
> have a survey of the legal language in many countries and analysis
> of the legislative processes which have resulted in the different
> use of UT, UTC, GMT.

Are there any countries whose law still prescribes the time zone as a
meridian (that may be a multiple of 15, but arguably still can't be
"legally correctly" described as GMT±N since it gives the difference in
degrees rather than hours), e.g. "the mean solar time of the sixtieth
degree of longitude west from Greenwich"? The US law doesn't currently,
but I can't find when it changed.