Michael Deckers via tz wrote:
Considering that this proposal makes the setting of the dst bit an issue that is independent from the circumstance of whether the value of a SAVE entry is zero or not, is it not desirable to completely avoid the use of negative SAVE values to express the dst bit setting, so as to make it easier for parsers of zic source files to follow the changes in the "bleeding edge" format?
It's more the other way around, I would think. zic has supported negative SAVE values for decades and most other tzdata parsers have followed suit. So if a timekeeping practice can be specified either way, it'll be easier on the installed base if we use this long-established feature than if we use the proposed new feature. I get the point that we'd rather keep the syntax simpler and more regular, and that lessening the number of syntax features helps do that. But here I think the compatibility win outweighs the regularity loss.
for systematicness, shouldn't the same suffixes and defaults also be applicable to a numeric entry in the RULE column of ZONE lines?
Good point, thanks. Proposed further patch attached.