On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
On 09/22/11 12:45, Tobias Conradi wrote:
FT for forward time (permanent summer time, e.g. EEFT).
This suggested abbreviation goes too far, I think. Then we'd have to decide whether summer time is permanent (or not) in many other situations. What is bad about that? Why shall we decide it here and deviate from EEST - yes, why not use EEST? - and not do so in other instances.
I'd rather not have to worry about such things. I don't particularly like "FET" either, but at least it has the virtue of not claiming to be part of a larger organized scheme. And EEFT at least has the virtue of being part of a larger scheme (xMT, xST, xDST) that is already defined in the Theory file.
(I had initially thought of proposing "EEET", Me too for "East of Eastern European Time", for East(ern) European Eastern Time, but maybe my English is not as good.
but decided that was too clever....) EEET shares the string "EE" with EET and EEST, in that regard it is clever. Whether this is too clever depends on a definition what is regarded to be too clever to be used in the tz database, a definition I cannot find in Theory.
-- Tobias Conradi Rheinsberger Str. 18 10115 Berlin Germany http://tobiasconradi.com/tobias_conradi