[tz] EST/EDT vs AEST/AEDT in AQ

[Tobias Conradi]

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Clive D.W. Feather <clive at davros.org> wrote:
>> On the other hand, I don't think LHDT/LHST/LHHDT is a good choice,
>> because like it or not, some people get confused by the 'D'. Be liberal
>> in what you accept, but rigorous in what you send.
>
> What we actually want to know is what Lord Howians actually use.
Why? Me not. Localization is out of scope of the database. This belongs to CLDR.

E.g. for Europe there is CET/CEST for all countries in the database,
but no one cares what the locals do

https://www.google.com/search?q=Uhr+CET+site%3Afaz.net

https://www.google.com/search?q=Uhr+MEZ+site%3Afaz.net

>> I think LHDT/LHST/LHHT was originaly proposed? To me that would be better.
>> What is the downside to it?
>
> It's unrelated to what anyone there uses?
It is not.

> But my point, reiterating Gwillim, is that you don't want to have
> "standard" letters for offsets
To the contrary, it seems John wants exactly that, like me.

> - particularly ones that aren't used by
> the locals -
what locals do does not matter

> because that will encourage bad programming practice.
It will improve the usability of the database.

> The
> abbreviation section of the database seems to have caused more argument and
> more cranks coming out of the woodwork than the rest put together.
And the day you have somplaceDT and someplaceHDT in the same country
next to each other, exactly your approach will lead to more debate.

But TZ database maintainers cannot /stop/ debate by choosing one
abbreviation or the other.

What they can stop is ambiguity. And using the letter D in a new
meaning paves the road for ambiguity.

Reserving D in %s for 1:00 offset as has been done over years, i.e. is
established practice, is the way to prevent certain kinds of possible
ambiguities.


--
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany

http://tobiasconradi.com