Reading this and the Macquarie Island discussion, the frequent repeated requests for renaming of TZs etc, is there a case for having a readily accessible set of documents that define current practice on TZs? In the years I've been following the group, these issues seem to be coming up with increasing frequency. Instead of relying on a pool of common knowledge underlying the existing documents, and having to exp[lain and justify things each time when challenged, things would be properly defined. This would also then provide a fixed starting point for looking at any changes to the current practice. 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: tz-bounces@iana.org [mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org] On Behalf Of Paul Koning Sent: 08 May 2013 01:42 To: random832@fastmail.us Cc: tz@iana.org Subject: Re: [tz] Proposal to use Asia/Tel_Aviv for Israel - Jerusalem is not internationally recognized as part of Israel On May 7, 2013, at 5:00 PM, <random832@fastmail.us> wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2013, at 16:37, Aaron Brown wrote:
I don't think it's relevant what the rest of the world thinks. If everyone in Jerusalem agrees on one reality, and everyone outside Jerusalem agrees on a different reality, then it would be logical to go with the reality that is agreed upon by those in Jerusalem. It matters what time people in Jerusalem think it is, what time their clocks show,
Nobody is talking about changing the time definition for Asia/Jerusalem.
This argument is whether a line with "IL" in the first column and "Asia/Jerusalem" in the third column ought to appear in zone.tab. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ok then, should Asia/Taipei be listed with country code CN? Or not at all? It seems to me the exact same reasoning that is being used here applies to both cases. In fact, such a proposal is not being made. This tells me that the motivation for the current proposal is in fact not what its proponents are pretending it is. paul, speaking only for himself and for no other person or organization.