On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Robert Elz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kre@munnari.oz.au" target="_blank">kre@munnari.oz.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The obvious name, if we were to insist on qualifying zone abbreviations<br>
wth references to location, would be "American Eastern Standard Time"<br>
(etc) - abbreviated as AEST... After all it applies in both Canada<br>
and the US, so USEST would require a CEST for what is essentially the<br>
same thing, and doesn't it also apply in parts of Latin America?<br>
So, AEST for Australia and AEST for the US/Canada etc.<br></blockquote><div><br>Not complete enough!<br><br>What about using the ISO-3166 2-letter abbrev (the ISO codes are already in the distribution, iso3166.tab )?<br>
<br>So:<br><ul><li>USEST</li><li>CAEST</li><li>AUEST</li><li>etc<br></li></ul>This should be unambiguous enough, I think.<br><br>This could be extended, for historical contexts, with ISO-8601:<br><ul><li>VECST-20110612 (Venezuala Time, as changed on 12 June 2011)<br>
</li><li>VECST-20120801 (etc)<br></li></ul>and so on.<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Or we just leave well enough alone, and leave things as they are.<br></blockquote><div><br>Oh. Well, if you are going to take the sensible approach ...<br> </div>I think the issue is simple: "While taking no position on the advisability and necessity of unique or user-friendly timezone abbreviations, this is not in the mandate of Mr Olson's group".<br>
<br clear="all"></div>-- <br>Sanjeev Gupta<br>+65 98551208 <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane">http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane</a><br>
<br>