Renaming Saigon to TP Ho Chi Minh

[Claus Färber]

Robert Elz schrieb:
> | Anyway, I propose a better rule specifically for simple case like a
 > | country being in only one timezone: just use the name of the
 > | Capital City.
> At first glance, that sounds like it would be reasonable, but in
> practice, it doesn't work.

What about using the "most important" city?

Importance would be determined by the following factors:

* number of inhabitants (most important factor)
* political status (capitals get a bonus)
* historical usage (cities already in use get a bonus, too)

It would also explain anomalies like Europe/Berlin (should be
Europe/Rhein-Rhur) and Europe/Rome (should be Europe/Milan).

If you argue that these are not anomalies, then for the same arguments, 
Europe/London is (should be Europe/Birmingham).

> Currently India has just Asia/Calcutta (which may be Asia/Kolkata
> after the next update), but by applying the "single zone" rule, it
> would have to be Asia/Delhi instead (maybe Asia/New_Delhi - that
> doesn't need to concern us right now).

Which is a good thing if Indians look for Asia/Delhi first because
that's their national capital.

> Then Asia/Calcutta (or Kolkata) would return for the eastern half, 
> but the western would probably be Asia/Mumbai (and Asia/Delhi would 
> vanish - or turn into a compatability link).

Well, the "most important" city in the western half would still be 
Asia/Delhi.

> The big advantage to the "largest population centre" is that it
> applies easily, and without much in the way of arguments, in all
> zones.

Why are there anomalies like Europe/Rome and Europe/Berlin, then?

Claus