On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 at 10:24, James Bellaire via tz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/17/2026 9:33 AM, Arthur Olson via tz wrote: > > Rather than choosing between EST and EDT going forward: EPDT (for > > Eastern Permanent Daylight Time). > > One benefit of using "EDT" going forward (beyond the RFC 822 and GNU > issues discussed) is that it would serve as a reminder that the area is > already on "permanent DST". It at least beats "Eđ”âđ«T" which, while disallowed, might better reflect how some would inevitably feel about all this. ;) > Humor aside, the US proposal clearly states the official names will be > "standard time". Several provinces in Canada were willing to to move in > coordination with the United States. Yukon decided not to wait for BC > and the US in 2020 and BC gave up on waiting for the US earlier this > year. I expect that if the US proposal passes it won't be long until the > Canadian provinces synchronize. Ontario's 2020 legislation was passed with the (admittedly nonbinding) understanding that it only be activated if both QuĂ©bec and New York went ahead, too. The US change going through would create pressure for the rest of Canada to follow suit, sure, but I wouldn't assume Canada would go along automatically, quickly, or even at all â especially if the ultimate decision point drags well into the fall. On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 at 10:51, Doug Ewell via tz <[email protected]> wrote: > Therefore, there is no âpermanent DSTâ; there is *removal* of DST combined > with a redefinition of standard time. Legally, that is more correct according to the bill as currently written. And that would align with our typical practice of modeling such arrangements with tm_isdst=0 (at least in the long-term, modulo near-term CLDR considerations). Of course, if it ultimately ends up being a shorter-term experiment *Ă la* 1974 rather than the "permanent" change that's intended, that could all get re-evaluated, too. -- Tim Parenti
