Our issue is not with abbreviations (-07/MST), and changing
the abbreviation to MST will not fix the issue. ICU checks whether a rule
applies (tm_isdst), and chooses the DST name if one does.

A change that would be compatible with current CLDR data is:

Rule Vanc 2026 only - Mar 9 0:00 1:00 D
# Zone NAME STDOFF RULES FORMAT [UNTIL]
Zone America/Vancouver -8:12:28 - LMT 1884
-8:00 Vanc P%sT 1987
-8:00 Canada P%sT (any time before 2026-11-01)
-8:00 Vanc (P%sT, MST, -07, whatever)

This keeps tm_isdst true for eternity; that's obviously not ideal, but we
can come back and fix this when we know more, and when CLDR can handle such
a change.

On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 at 19:39, Paul Eggert <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2026-03-06 08:11, Robert Bastian via tz wrote:
> > Because CLDR keys its display names by this flag, this change will cause
> ICU and
> > other downstream software (including major operating systems) to display
> > BC’s UTC-7 as "Pacific Standard Time," while Los Angeles’ UTC-7 will
> > display as "Pacific Daylight Time."
>
> Yes, and what's currently in the draft TZDB on GitHub (America/Vancouver
> switching to abbreviation "-07") was intended to be merely a
> placeholder. We weren't intending to publish it as 2026b.
>
> For the reason you mention and for other software-compatibility reasons,
> let's change the "-07" placeholder to an alphabetic abbreviation. The
> simplest fix appears to be to change to the abbreviation "MST", as is
> already the case for America/Vancouver's geographic neighbors that
> observe UTC-7 all year. This should fix the CLDR issue (albeit in a
> different way than what you suggested), and should be good enough until
> the BC government and/or common practice advises us all later on what
> three-or-more-character abbreviation is most popular.
>
> Of course we'd prefer to make just one change now, and no changes later,
> but it seems we do not have that luxury given the rushed way this was
> done legally. And I would rather publish something before the actual
> legal change occurs on Monday, rather than issue a post-facto change.
>

Reply via email to