Wouldn't we normally _not_ create a new zone until it diverges from its current zone?
Which makes the historical "has it always been GMT-5" important. If that answer is yes, then there's no need (yet) for a new zone, but if there is an historical divergence then a new zone is warranted.
From: tz-bounces@iana.org [mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org] On Behalf Of Mark Davis ?
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 2:54 PM
To: David Patte
Cc: tz@iana.org
Subject: Re: [tz] Missing entry for Heard Island and MacDonald Islands
I also agree.
— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:17 PM, David Patte <dpatte@relativedata.com> wrote:
I also agree
On 2012-05-11 15:56, Paw Boel Nielsen wrote:
I agree with Tobias a new zone for Heard Island and MacDonald Islands would be beneficial.
Maybe because Etc/GMT-5 is adequate?
Systems that are set to use "Etc/GMT-5" will not observe a change even if HM changes.
Paw
-----Original Message-----
From: tz-bounces@iana.org [mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org] On Behalf Of Tobias Conradi
Sent: 11 May 2012 21:44
To: tz@iana.org
Subject: Re: [tz] Missing entry for Heard Island and MacDonald Islands
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Ian Abbott<abbotti@mev.co.uk> wrote:
If so, why is HM not covered?
Maybe because Etc/GMT-5 is adequate?
Systems that are set to use "Etc/GMT-5" will not observe a change even if HM changes.
I don't know whether HM observed UTC+5 during all the time since 1970.
That is an information the tzdb provides for many other ISO 3166-1 regions, but for HM it fails to do so.
--
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany
http://tobiasconradi.com/
--