eggert at cs.ucla.edu
Thu Jun 2 15:37:55 UTC 2016
On 06/02/2016 07:50 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
> It would be ironic if it turns out that tzdata abandons these
> abbreviations and then the popular demand lobbying moves to the
> Unicode Consortium who might then re-instate them.
The Unicode Consortium is welcome to maintain them, just as they're
welcome to maintain other information like the nominative vs the
genitive case of Russian month names (a real bug with tzcode 'strftime'
in Russian locales, by the way -- any volunteers to fix that? :-). The
Consortium has the resources to deal with this sort of thing. We don't.
Another reason for not using these abbreviations, which I haven't
perhaps made clear, is to avoid arbitrating disputes over what the time
zone abbreviations should be. A user could reasonably complain "Why are
you making up an abbreviation that calls it Krasnoyarsk Time? This is
Tomsk, not Krasnoyarsk!" The current kerfuffle is just the tip of the
iceberg, and the problem will get worse as the number of tzdata names
These abbreviations are entirely invented and are not needed to solve
time zone issues. All too often disagreements about them degenerate into
political disputes that distract from tzdata's main goal, and we need to
get out of the business of making them up or trying to defend them.
More information about the tz