On Tue, 02 Apr 2013, Tobias Conradi wrote:
Seems we have some common ground missing anyway, since your requirement is not understandable to me. And you refuse to explain it, when asked "Why?"
I thought that I had explained my position many times, but let me try once more. It does no good to come to the tz project and say "those abbreviations are illogical" or "different abbreviations would be more useful", because the tz project is not in the business of choosing logical or useful abbreviations. The tz project is in the business of documenting existing practice, so if you want the tz project to change its abbreviations then you have to show what the existing practice actually is. If the existing practice is inconsistent, then you have a problem. As I see it, the situation is something like this: (0) A fundamental principle of operation of the tz database is that it does not set policy for timekeeping anywhere; it merely attempts to document existing practice. It is not in the business of choosing useful or logical abbreviations; it is in the business of documenting the abbreviations that are already in use. (1) The tz database has some abbreviations for Australian time zones. (2) Somebody comes along and says "Those abbreviations in (1) are wrong! Here's a link to a government web site (A) that uses different abbreviations." (3) Somebody else says "Oh yeah? Here are links to different government web sites (B) and (C) that disagree with (A)." (4) Somebody else says "Oh yeah? Here's a link to another government web site (D) that agrees with (A)." (5) Somebody says "As long as there's disagreement in Australia, the tz project should make no changes to the abbreviations in (1)." (6) Somebody says "But the web site (A) is an official publication of the central government, and the web site (B) is from some unimportant department." (7) Somebody says "The web site (A) is irrelevant because it is directed at tourists, it's not an official standard of any sort." (8) Somebody says "The web site (A) is irrelevant because the central government has no jurisdiction over time zone names, that power lies with the state governments." etc., ad nauseam. I have left out many steps and paraphrased the comments. As long as different people can point to different web sites that say different things, and there is no overall summary, this matter is unlikely to be resolved. I have no decision making power here, and I have no wish to lay out a set of necessary conditions, but here's a stab at a set of sufficient conditions: Provide a list of what abbreviations are actually in use by the people in Australia, and what abbreviations are legislated or standardised or recommended by governments or industry bodies or interest groups. If there is inconsistency, then present a report on the relative frequency of use of the different abbreviations. If the report shows a clear consensus in favour of one set of abbreviations, then those are the abbreviations that the tz project should use. So far, we have identified that there is inconsistency, but I have no idea which abbreviations are in wider use. --apb (Alan Barrett)