Information wanted #1: time zone names in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine
I'm asking for information to use in specifying time zone abbreviations for Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. For all three I can use: 1. References to government documents that specify time zone names or abbreviations. 2. References to government documents that specify whether current time is considered to be "standard" time or "saving" time. 3. References indicating what time zone names or abbreviations are actually in use in the areas. 4. References indicating whether people in the areas consider themselves to be on "standard" or "saving" time. We do have this year's Decree #725... http://www.government.ru/gov/results/16355/print/ ...for Russia; if translate.google.com is correct, Moscow is on "Eastern Standard Time" with most other zones being "Eastern Standard Time plus n hours" and one zone being "Eastern Standard Time minus 1 hour." --ado
Correction for Russia: The said decree #725 sets the reference time for the timezones in Russia (/chasovye zony/). The reference time is named "Moscow time" and defined as UTC+4. Kaliningrad is in the 1st (Russia's) timezone which's defined as "Moscow time minus 1". Moscow itself is in the 2nd (Russia's) timezone, which's defined as "Moscow time". Belarus: The government resolution #1229 issued Sep 15, 2011 doesn't name the new standard time specifically but says "time measurement (/ischislyeniye/) is to be conducted according with the international timezones system, by the zonal time (/poyasnoye vryemya/) plus 1 hour, with no observing of the seasonal time (/syezonnoye vryemya/)". [http://www.government.by/ru/solutions/1694] Also there exists a half-formal expression "time in Minsk" (alternatively "Minsk time"). Only half-formal because it's used, e.g., in state radio "precise time chimes" ("It's 12 o'clock precisely in Minsk"), but I don't think there's any reference document for this. And, like I said before, Western abbreviations of EE.T nature are known prevailingly to IT specialists here. -Yury On 09/27/2011 07:02 AM, Arthur David Olson wrote:
I'm asking for information to use in specifying time zone abbreviations for Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. ...
Belarus: The government resolution #1229 issued Sep 15, 2011 doesn't name the new standard time specifically but says "time measurement (/ischislyeniye/) is to be conducted according with the international timezones system, by the zonal time (/poyasnoye vryemya/) plus 1 hour, with no observing of the seasonal time (/syezonnoye vryemya/)". [http://www.government.by/ru/solutions/1694]
That could be read as forward time, and maybe convince those that opposed EEFT and adding a concept of FT to the Theory file as proposed last week on this mailing list.
And, like I said before, Western abbreviations of EE.T nature are known prevailingly to IT specialists here. So, can we get rid of FET?
-- Tobias Conradi Rheinsberger Str. 18 10115 Berlin Germany http://tobiasconradi.com/tobias_conradi
Ukraine has resolution #8330 that was passed on 2011-09-20, where the wording is "the second time zone with the addition of one hour". http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb_n/webproc4_1?id=&pf3511=40036 http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=auto&tl=en&u=... The resolution also abrogates two prior resolutions. #15-12 (dated 1990) - the one establishing the year-round "second time zone without the addition of one hour": http://zakon.nau.ua/doc/?code=15-12 http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UT... and #2176-12 (dated 1992) - the one establishing daylight saving time: http://zakon.nau.ua/doc/?code=2176-12 http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UT...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, Arthur David Olson wrote:
I'm asking for information to use in specifying time zone abbreviations for Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. For all three I can use:
1. References to government documents that specify time zone names or abbreviations. 2. References to government documents that specify whether current time is considered to be "standard" time or "saving" time. Here is the bulletin containing Decree #1229 of Belarussian Council of Ministers (page 5, marked as 5/34447) that cancelled "saving" time: http://pravo.by/pdf/2011-106/2011-106(011-024).pdf
1. Perform time measurement on the territory of Republic of Belarus in accordance with international time zones system using zone time plus one hour without transition to seasonal time. 2. Declare obsolete decree N317 (1996.05.13) of Belarussian Council of Ministers "Change of time measurement on territory of Republic of Belarus". 3. This decree comes in action at the time of its official publication. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time terms in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine are regulated with GOST 8.567-99 which was taked in use in Belarus since 2001: http://tnpa.by/KartochkaDoc.php?UrlRN=84396&UrlIDGLOBAL=84396 GOST itself (page scans): http://standartgost.ru/%D0%93%D0%9E%D0%A1%D0%A2%208.567-99 It is worth to point that according to the GOST 8.567-99, (art. 3.1.19) "zone time" is defined as "unified time within the same time zone (1/24th part of Earth area limited by meridians), measured using national scale of the coordinated time and distanced from it by number of hours equal to zone number". Further, in a comment to article 3.1.19, it is defined that zone time corrected by the government is called "decree time". In Russia in addition to Decree #725, there is Federal Law #107-FZ "Time calculation", http://www.rg.ru/2011/06/06/vremya-dok.html, that defines specific terms. Russian time is defined relative to "Moscow time" which is, according to the law, article 5, "time of time zone in which the capital of Russian Federation -- Moscow city -- is situated". Decree #725 amends this definition by precisely defining that 'in accordance with article 5 law 107-FZ, Moscow time is UTC(SU)+4'. In Belarus time calculation-related rules are defined and revised by Interdisciplinary commission on Time, Frequency, and Earth rotation measurments. Unfortunately, apart from the decree #403 that defined the Commission itself, I was unable to find any documented traces of its decisions (or my search-fu on pravo.by is weak). http://pravo.by/pdf/2007-82/2007-82(047-071).pdf (pages 7-9, marked as 5/24967). I have asked relevant people from National Metrology Institute of Belarus (BelGIM) of their opinion. Hopefully, the answer will come "soon". -- / Alexander Bokovoy
On 09/27/2011 10:29 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, Arthur David Olson wrote:
I'm asking for information to use in specifying time zone abbreviations for Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. ... Time terms in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine are regulated with GOST 8.567-99 which was taked in use in Belarus since 2001: ...
This standard only regulates the terms used in time measurement per se, and so doesn't include a nomenclature on local timezones' naming. I'd say that the cited request asks for something that simply isn't there, and never was. In Soviet times, in local use, there never were any abbreviatures at all, let alone foreign. There was "Moscow time" and other zonal "times", which were standardised to their international timezones (2..13 of 0..23) plus "decreed" 1 hour (likewise in astronomical and similar uses). And, obviously, nobody bothered with invention of abbreviatures after 1991, either in Russia, or in Belarus, or in Ukraine. -Yury
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, Yury Tarasievich wrote:
On 09/27/2011 10:29 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, Arthur David Olson wrote:
I'm asking for information to use in specifying time zone abbreviations for Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. ... Time terms in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine are regulated with GOST 8.567-99 which was taked in use in Belarus since 2001: ...
This standard only regulates the terms used in time measurement per se, and so doesn't include a nomenclature on local timezones' naming. Correct. That's why I asked additional information from BelGIM specialists who also members of the mentioned interdisciplinary commission.
Unless they have something specific in mind we are more or less free to select the time zone name...
I'd say that the cited request asks for something that simply isn't there, and never was. In Soviet times, in local use, there never were any abbreviatures at all, let alone foreign. There was "Moscow time" and other zonal "times", which were standardised to their international timezones (2..13 of 0..23) plus "decreed" 1 hour (likewise in astronomical and similar uses). And, obviously, nobody bothered with invention of abbreviatures after 1991, either in Russia, or in Belarus, or in Ukraine. Right and except for tzdata's provided abbrevations there were no activities to invent anything beyond separate and narrowly used applications.
-- / Alexander Bokovoy
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:38:50 +0300 From: Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasievich@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E818B9A.2000306@gmail.com> | I'd say that the cited request asks for | something that simply isn't there, and never was. Yes, that's true of most of the world, but most Americans don't understand, as they've had timezone names, and standardised abbreviations, essentially forever. Our problem is that the interface we need to provide was also invented by Americans, and insists on having a timezone abbreviation for every timezone - so we're stuck with inventing them for most places in the world. ado's request was (I think) largely because if there are any commonly used abbreviations (even in Russian/Cyrillic, where we need English/Latn) it makes sense for what we invent to be as close as possible to what is actually used. What we should really be doing is making it clear to one and all that these abbreviations are meaningless, rather than FET or EEFT or BYT or anything else, call all the Russian (and related) zones "EST" (they're Eastern, with respect to most of Europe anyway, and they have a standard time), for no better reason than to make it clear to everyone that the abbreviations have no practical purpose, and are better never used, anywhere. kre
Robert Elz said:
What we should really be doing is making it clear to one and all that these abbreviations are meaningless, rather than FET or EEFT or BYT or anything else, call all the Russian (and related) zones "EST" (they're Eastern, with respect to most of Europe anyway, and they have a standard time), for no better reason than to make it clear to everyone that the abbreviations have no practical purpose, and are better never used, anywhere.
Very true. Perhaps we should use "NSA", for "No Standard Abbreviation", for these cases. -- 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
On 27/09/11 12:35, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Robert Elz said:
What we should really be doing is making it clear to one and all that these abbreviations are meaningless, rather than FET or EEFT or BYT or anything else, call all the Russian (and related) zones "EST" (they're Eastern, with respect to most of Europe anyway, and they have a standard time), for no better reason than to make it clear to everyone that the abbreviations have no practical purpose, and are better never used, anywhere. Very true.
Perhaps we should use "NSA", for "No Standard Abbreviation", for these cases.
That would be unfortunate as the standard Posix date format includes the alphabetic timezone abbreviate does it not? Would it not be better to use the offset as the abbreviation when there isn't a suitable abbreviation? jch
Is there a reason not to name the new zone(s) for the country or countries in which they apply? Either: 1. "Ukraine-Belarus Time" (UBT or UBST) in both countries, or the other way around with Belarus first. Or: 2. "Ukraine Standard Time" (UST) in Ukraine and "Belarus Standard Time" (BST) in Belarus. There would appear to be no problem with having multiple names for the same offset; UTC+3 already has at least two other designations in the database, for Arabia (AST) and East Africa (EAT). Martin
On 9/27/11 3:27 PM, Moore, Martin (HAS BCS) wrote:
Is there a reason not to name the new zone(s) for the country or countries in which they apply? Either:
1. "Ukraine-Belarus Time" (UBT or UBST) in both countries, or the other way around with Belarus first.
So, what about Europe/Kaliningrad (the westernmost part of the Russian Federation)? ;) -- Oleksandr Samoylyk
2. "Ukraine Standard Time" (UST) in Ukraine and "Belarus Standard Time" (BST) in Belarus.
It would be expedient, particularly considering that there's talk among legislators in the Western Regions of Ukraine about creating a separate second timezone within the country, which may or may not revert to the old EET/EEST and will be distinct from the Kiev/Kyiv one. Source: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=uk&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-...
On 9/27/11 3:27 PM, Moore, Martin (HAS BCS) wrote:
Is there a reason not to name the new zone(s) for the country or countries in which they apply? Either:
1. "Ukraine-Belarus Time" (UBT or UBST) in both countries, or the other way around with Belarus first.
So, what about Europe/Kaliningrad (the westernmost part of the Russian Federation)? ;) -- Oleksandr Samoylyk
On 09/27/2011 01:46 PM, Robert Elz wrote: ...
What we should really be doing is making it clear to one and all that these abbreviations are meaningless, rather than FET or EEFT or BYT or anything else, call all the Russian (and related) zones "EST" (they're Eastern, with respect to most of Europe anyway, and they have a standard time), for no better reason than to make it clear to everyone that the abbreviations have no practical purpose, and are better never used, anywhere.
In fact, rather than the abbreviations, I'd rather see designations based somehow on the corresponding international timezones (/chasovyye poyasa/). That's the long established practice here, after all. Something like UTC+3 or Z02+1 (w/r to the 0..23 numbering) would make do nicely both for Belarus and Ukraine, at least. But if an abbreviation must exist, after all, let it be something sensible, like, well, EEFT, or, in fact, EEET. -Yury
On 2011/09/27 02:02 PM, Yury Tarasievich wrote:
On 09/27/2011 01:46 PM, Robert Elz wrote: ...
What we should really be doing is making it clear to one and all that these abbreviations are meaningless, rather than FET or EEFT or BYT or anything else, call all the Russian (and related) zones "EST" (they're Eastern, with respect to most of Europe anyway, and they have a standard time), for no better reason than to make it clear to everyone that the abbreviations have no practical purpose, and are better never used, anywhere.
In fact, rather than the abbreviations, I'd rather see designations based somehow on the corresponding international timezones (/chasovyye poyasa/). That's the long established practice here, after all. Something like UTC+3 or Z02+1 (w/r to the 0..23 numbering) would make do nicely both for Belarus and Ukraine, at least.
If you want to include digits, '+' and '-' characters in the abbreviations, they'd also have to start with '<' and end with '>'. See the description of the TZ environment variable in the X/Open Single UNIX Specification. Some experiments on my Linux system: $ LANG=C TZ='UTC' date Tue Sep 27 14:05:51 UTC 2011 $ LANG=C TZ='UTC+3' date Tue Sep 27 11:05:56 UTC 2011 $ LANG=C TZ='<UTC+3>' date Tue Sep 27 14:06:02 UTC+3 2011 $ LANG=C TZ='<UTC+3>3' date Tue Sep 27 11:06:05 UTC+3 2011 You can see the effect of the '<' '>' quoting characters in the above commands. In the TZ='UTC+3' case the 'UTC+3' was broken down and parsed (hence the 3 hour shift in the printed time relative to the 'UTC' case) instead of being treated as a literal abbreviation. -- -=( Ian Abbott @ MEV Ltd. E-mail: <abbotti@mev.co.uk> )=- -=( Tel: +44 (0)161 477 1898 FAX: +44 (0)161 718 3587 )=-
What we should really be doing is making it clear to one and all that these abbreviations are meaningless, rather than FET or EEFT or BYT or anything else, call all the Russian (and related) zones "EST" (they're Eastern, with respect to most of Europe anyway, and they have a standard time), for no better reason than to make it clear to everyone that the abbreviations have no practical purpose, and are better never used, anywhere.
In fact, rather than the abbreviations, I'd rather see designations based somehow on the corresponding international timezones (/chasovyye poyasa/). That's the long established practice here, after all. Something like UTC+3 or Z02+1 (w/r to the 0..23 numbering) would make do nicely both for Belarus and Ukraine, at least. Using UTC+3 would according to tzcode2011i\Theory violate POSIX until 2000.
Citation: ----- Use abbreviations that consist of three or more ASCII letters. ... This rule guarantees that all abbreviations could have been specified by a POSIX TZ string. POSIX requires at least three characters for an abbreviation. POSIX through 2000 says that an abbreviation cannot start with ':', and cannot contain ',', '-', '+', ---------
But if an abbreviation must exist, after all, let it be something sensible, like, well, EEFT, or, in fact, EEET.
I run a website where I expect to have a letter only value. The UTC+3 value exists anyway. Judging whether something is sensible needs a rule set for what is sensible or not. I do not see any precedence that alphabetic order (F comes after E) has been used before, and I also don't see that written in Theory. Therefore I think FET is less based on common practice and written down rules than EEFT. If sensibility refers to common practice and written down rules, then EEFT is more sensible than FET. -- Tobias Conradi Rheinsberger Str. 18 10115 Berlin Germany http://tobiasconradi.com/tobias_conradi
On 09/27/2011 06:01 PM, Tobias Conradi wrote: ...
In fact, rather than the abbreviations, I'd rather see designations based somehow on the corresponding international timezones (/chasovyye poyasa/). That's the long established practice here, after all. Something like UTC+3 or Z02+1 (w/r to the 0..23 numbering) would make do nicely both for Belarus and Ukraine, at least. Using UTC+3 would according to tzcode2011i\Theory violate POSIX until 2000.
We can dispense with that notion, then. ...
I run a website where I expect to have a letter only value. The UTC+3 value exists anyway. Judging whether something is sensible needs a rule set for what is sensible or not. ... If sensibility refers to common practice and written down rules, then EEFT is more sensible than FET.
Well, yes, even if it's me saying that. With regard to your other post, yes, the government resolution refers to the forward time concept, if indirectly. -Yury
participants (11)
-
Alexander Bokovoy -
Arthur David Olson -
Barton -
Clive D.W. Feather -
Ian Abbott -
John Haxby -
Moore, Martin (HAS BCS) -
Oleksandr Samoylyk -
Robert Elz -
Tobias Conradi -
Yury Tarasievich