[tz] On merging timezones - a radical proposal.
Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Thu May 23 14:25:30 UTC 2013
While there have been a flurry of proposals on this list, the current
process and format has worked just fine for many years. For every person
pleased by any of these proposals, I strongly suspect there will be at
least one other displeased—and probably many. (The people who are likely to
complain are also more likely to be members of this list, while those who
are content with the current system are less likely.)
So on the principle that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", we'd be better
off just leaving the system as is.
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Clive D.W. Feather <clive at davros.org>wrote:
> random832 at fastmail.us said:
> > Why do we have zones that track _cities'_ movements from one timezone to
> > another?
> We don't.
> We *define* a timezone as being a geographical area where all the clocks
> should always show the same time since 1970. Therefore a city *never* moves
> from one timezone to another. If a geographical area should have clocks
> showing different times in (say) April 1996, then that area contains more
> than one time zone.
> We do *NOT* use "timezone" to refer to *concepts* like "Eastern Standard
> Time" or "British Summer Time"; let alone "North American Eastern Time".
> (I think we have GMT+/-N zones, but that's because they are used at sea and
> so have geographic meaning.)
> We could add such zones, but these would be *additional* timezones. A city
> would not move from the NACT zone to the NAET zone; rather, it remains in
> its own zone, which shows the same time as NACT before the transition date
> and the same time as NAET after it.
> Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler,
> Email: clive at davros.org | it will get its revenge.
> Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer
> Mobile: +44 7973 377646
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tz