I agree. Once we have a city in that zone, let's leave it be.

BTW, I don't think a city can ever 'leave' a zone. The zone could split, but part of it would still contain the city (assuming no disaster that wipes the city away completely).

Take a hypothetical: let's suppose that Southern California seceded from the United States. Even in that situation I think what should happen is something like:

US	+340308-1181434	America/Los_Angeles	Pacific Time
=>
SC	+340308-1181434	America/Los_Angeles

US	+374736-1223317	America/San_Francisco	Pacific Time


Mark

— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —


On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 14:00, Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 22:57, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> But capitals change too (for example, Kazakhstan).  No naming principle
> will work everywhere, and it's probably better to stick with the principles
> that we have.  The question here is when one principle (use the most-populous city)
> should override another one (avoid name changes).  It's not a slam-dunk case
> either way, which is why I asked for further comments.

FWIW, I'd favour the "avoid name changes" principle.

There are a number of zones which have "the wrong" name (typically
this means "not the current capital"). As long as the city stays in
the zone, I'd tend to keep it.

Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>