[tz] EST/EDT vs AEST/AEDT in AQ
guy at alum.mit.edu
Tue Apr 16 00:58:48 UTC 2013
On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:59 AM, Tobias Conradi <mail.2012 at tobiasconradi.com> wrote:
> 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.
Another way to think about this is to say
The abbreviations supplied by the tz database are the abbreviations appropriate for the C locale.
For any other locale, go to CLDR.
And, yes, this argues that implementations of the tzname array, and of strftime(), in UN*X systems should contain more code than just what you get with tzcode, so that it goes to the CLDR for time zone abbreviations for locales other than the C locale.
More information about the tz