Lyndon Nerenberg <[email protected]> writes: > On Dec 15, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Ken Hornstein <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So that makes me wonder if >> we should still try to bother to generate a symbolic timezone name. It >> looks like the only portable way to do this is to have an internal list >> of timezone names. A large part of me says to not bother. > > The IETF has been discouraging symbolic timezone names for many years. > I would say ditch them. For those who want a symbolic timezone > (usually recipients) it's so they can easily mentally convert to their > local time. Those folks are better served by a +nnnn offset that their > local MUA can unambiguously convert to local time for display. And for > those of us who do care about the senders local time, the +nnnn format > makes it a lot easier for me to do the mental conversion vs. > deciphering some unknown-to-me local-to-them timezone abbreviation.
Agree with Lyndon here. -- Bill Wohler <[email protected]> aka <[email protected]> http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
