While there have been a flurry of proposals on this list, the current process and format has worked just fine for many years. For every person pleased by any of these proposals, I strongly suspect there will be at least one other displeased—and probably many. (The people who are likely to complain are also more likely to be members of this list, while those who are content with the current system are less likely.)
So on the principle that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", we'd be better off just leaving the system as is.
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Clive D.W. Feather <clive@davros.org> wrote:
random832@fastmail.us said:We don't.
> Why do we have zones that track _cities'_ movements from one timezone to
> another?
We *define* a timezone as being a geographical area where all the clocks
should always show the same time since 1970. Therefore a city *never* moves
from one timezone to another. If a geographical area should have clocks
showing different times in (say) April 1996, then that area contains more
than one time zone.
We do *NOT* use "timezone" to refer to *concepts* like "Eastern Standard
Time" or "British Summer Time"; let alone "North American Eastern Time".
(I think we have GMT+/-N zones, but that's because they are used at sea and
so have geographic meaning.)
We could add such zones, but these would be *additional* timezones. A city
would not move from the NACT zone to the NAET zone; rather, it remains in
its own zone, which shows the same time as NACT before the transition date
and the same time as NAET after it.
--
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