[tz] Request for change to the tz database
Brian.Inglis at SystematicSw.ab.ca
Tue Feb 9 00:36:31 UTC 2021
On 2021-02-08 16:06, Philip Paeps wrote:
> On 2021-02-09 06:31:22 (+0800), John Hawkinson wrote:
>> Paul Eggert <eggert at cs.ucla.edu> wrote on Mon, 8 Feb 2021
>> at 17:24:39 EST in <5428025b-2f3c-3e09-7594-37d8e135fbd7 at cs.ucla.edu>:
>>> The compromise proposal I made in November (see URL below) received only one
>>> comment <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2020-November/029568.html> , which
>>> suggested to not bother with a compromise and to just rename the entry then.
>> I did not reply to your compromise proposal because I thought it was clear
>> from my prior input that I agreed with the idea that an interim compromise was
>> pointless and summary renaming was appropriate. I suspect many others who
>> expressed themselves before similarly did not offer their opinion, because it
>> would feel like repetition.
> (It was I who posted the only comment on Paul's proposal in November expressing
> a preference for summary renaming.)
> Note that I am not opposed to the compromise proposal Paul suggested. Though my
> preference for summary renaming stands. It is clear that we will eventually
> have a Europe/Kyiv. We might as well get it over with. We have an established
> and reasonably exercised backward compatibility mechanism for people who need
> it. Trying out forward compatibility seems to provide few benefits.
I doubt any of these posters actually use software that displays Kiev: they have
made no mention of products or projects, and have been told to spam this
address! They could also be Russian provocateurs.
How can we know they are Ukrainian, as it is useful if Russian controlled
systems can maintain or masquerade as Ukrainian identities, used in media
campaigns to their own ends?
Similar reasoning applies to similar posts about other locales.
No change should be required if we are using internal identifier names.
We should decide that either all location identifiers be maintained as the
current English identifiers as they are identifier names relevant only to
technical communications, or all should be renamed to their local Latinizations
e.g. Roma, Lisboa, as opinions of their their local users take precedence.
Then table reconsideration for five (or ten) years to see if anything changes.
"Rough concensus and running code" matters, unnecessary fiddling causes bugs!
Mumbai vs Bombay is the only name change I would consider commonly recognized by
most English speakers, but Kolkata, Kyiv, etc. are not, and neither are most
country and city renamings in recent decades, nor are they widely used when they
appear in the press, often requiring their previous names to provide relevancy.
[I still see widely recognized names such as Burma and Rangoon used in the
popular press to explain what's going on in what's now called Myanmar, as few
recognize the latter; people have no interest or care about what happens in
countries whose names they no longer recognize. Languages and names are about
communication and comprehension: change names if you want to hinder
communication and comprehension, and interest and caring as consequences.]
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains
too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised.
[Data in binary units and prefixes, physical quantities in SI.]
More information about the tz