<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24.07.19 14:19, Michael H Deckers
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d8340f33-a65b-3684-b2f3-c17a1dddaaf1@googlemail.com"> <br>
On 2019-07-24 08:45, Alois Treindl wrote: <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In my humble opinion, I think the choice
TZ made for India, by selecting Kolkata <br>
(formerly Calcutta) as the reference <br>
location, was not a good choice. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I can understand your point -- but it is definitely <br>
not applicable to tzdb data which is not meant to <br>
cover historical data: <br>
<br>
However, the database is not designed for and does not
suffice for <br>
applications requiring accurate handling of all past times
everywhere, <br>
as it would take far too much effort and guesswork to record
all <br>
details of pre-1970 civil timekeeping. (from theory.html) <br>
<br>
On the contrary, the tzdb rules for selecting a representative
<br>
location for a time zone are carefully constructed so as <br>
to avoid political or other extraneous implications as far <br>
as possible. Past experience shows that this is a very <br>
advantageous design. <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>I am fully aware of that.</p>
<p>BUT: For the chosen city to represent a zone from the 1970 data,
all past history must also be presented correctly.<br>
This is difficult given the uncertainty of time in Kolkata up to
1941.</p>
<p>TZ was conscious of that problem and chose the artificial
'railway time' which seems clearly NOT the time used in Kolkata on
the ground for all civil purposes. See comment in the TZ source.</p>
<p>The rule "Use the most populous among locations in a region" has
also been broken with the choice of Kolkata.<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>