As far as I know, in tz there is no definition of the extents of Antarctica, and tz locations have just been put into whichever region seems best at the time. If I'm right on this, there is no zone to move as it isn't defined. All I'm suggesting is that where there is debate on which zone a location should be in, or if a new location is required, this is probably as good an approach as any to resolve the issue. Tim Smartcom Software Ltd Portsmouth Technopole Kingston Crescent Portsmouth PO2 8FA United Kingdom www.smartcomsoftware.com Smartcom Software is a limited company registered in England and Wales, registered number 05641521. -----Original Message----- From: Clive D.W. Feather [mailto:clive@davros.org] Sent: 18 April 2013 11:35 To: Tim Thornton Cc: rra@stanford.edu; tz@iana.org Subject: Re: [tz] Proposal to change Macquarie Island to be Australian territory Tim Thornton said:
Regarding in which region an island lies, a good approach is probably to refer to the IHO (International Hydrographic Organisation) publication S-23 on the limits of oceans and seas. [...] So I would propose that any TZ data south of 60S, which means that Macquarie Island does not fall in to Antarctica.
If this was a new zone, I think I'd agree with you. But given that it's an existing zone, what is the benefit of moving the zone rather than leaving it alone? I'd want to see a compelling reason for the move, not just a "we've decided to use a new definition of 'Antarctica'". -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: clive@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646