Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:20:39 -0800 (PST) From: Robbin Kawabata <Robbin.Kawabata@eng.sun.com>
I think etcetera is OK....
On second thought you're probably right. This stuff is so obsolete now, changing it would probably add to confusion rather than subtracting it.
Note the comments in the file itself:
# We use POSIX-style signedness in the names and output, # internal-style signedness in the specifications. # For example, TZ=Etc/GMT+4 corresponds to 4 hours _behind_ UTC; # it is equivalent to TZ=GMT+4, which is implemented directly as per POSIX.
Those comments are not quite right either, and they added to my confusion. TZ=Etc/GMT+4 is not exactly equivalent to TZ=GMT+4, because they result in different abbreviations. How about if we change the above comments to be something like this instead? # We use POSIX-style signedness in the names and output, # internal-style signedness in the specifications. # For example, TZ=Etc/GMT+4 corresponds to 4 hours _behind_ UTC; # it is equivalent to TZ=GMT+4, except that it uses the abbreviation "GMT+4" # whereas TZ=GMT+4 uses the misleading abbreviation "GMT". # TZ=Etc/GMT+4 is equivalent to the TZ='<GMT+4>+4' of Draft 5 of the next # version of POSIX, but the angle-bracket notation is not yet # supported by the tz code. With the Draft 5 notation, people who # prefer the traditional time zone sign can use TZ='<GMT-4>+4'.