On Mar 4, 2013, at 22:49 , L. David Baron wrote:
> On Saturday 2013-03-02 10:50 -0800, Norbert Lindenberg wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 2013, at 8:46 , Mark Davis ? wrote:
>>> The TZDB has the equivalence class {Asia/Calcutta Asia/Kolkata}. They used
>>> to have the former as the canonical name (in Zone), but then changed it to
>>> the latter. Here is the current TZDB data:
>>>
>>> zone.tab
>>>
>>> IN +2232+08822 Asia/Kolkata
>>>
>>> asia
>>>
>>> Zone Asia/Kolkata 5:53:28 - LMT 1880 # Kolkata
>>> ...
>>>
>>> backward
>>> Link Asia/Kolkata Asia/Calcutta
>>>
>>> Because of the Link, both are valid and equivalent.
>
>> That breaks if/when the tz database removes Asia/Calcutta from its Link list
>> and other systems using IANA names stop supporting (or never start
>> supporting) that name.
>>
>> I still think the stability issue should be addressed in the IANA time zone
>> database itself, not by adopting a IANA-derived alternate registry. Has that
>> been tried?
>
> In http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2013-March/018697.html the
> maintainer of the timezone database wrote (in reference to this
> discussion):
> # That discussion seems to be predicated on the assumption that
> # tz zone names can and do "disappear", but they don't. For example,
> # we renamed Asia/Calcutta to Asia/Kolkata, but kept the old name
> # as an alias for the new one.
>
> So I think from their end, the "stability issue" is considered
> addressed. Is that not sufficient?
Depends on how explicit that stability guarantee is. In the meantime I learned
from the ongoing discussion that there is a Theory file, tucked away in the
tzcode tar ball, that includes some rules. I proposed making that information a
bit more prominent, e.g., in the form of an RFC.
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2013-March/018714.html
Norbert
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
