Re coming Russian-Belarusian-Ukrainian timezone change
Hello, They say that for denoting the new timezone there's FET (further-eastern european time) proposal in the works, but this seems Very Bad and Confusing English to me. Please consider denoting the new timezone as EEFT (East European Forward Time) -> minimal changes in abbreviature and mnemonic, clear semantic. Better English, too. -Yury
I'm unsure if this is the correct procedure, but here's the diff for the EEFT proposal. I was able to reliably locate only the Belarus record in the tz data file. -Yury
The proposal EEFT keeps the EE of EET and EEST. It is also more in line with existing naming rules in the Theory file, quoting Theory: ------- For summer time append `ST'; for double summer time append `DST'; etc. ------- I propose to add "FT" to Theory and insert the following before "For zones whose times are taken from a city's longitude..." -------- All abbreviations end in "T". Some common endings are - MT for mean time (e.g. GTM), - ST for summer time (e.g. CEST), - DST for double summer time - FT for forward time (permanent summer time, e.g. EEFT). -------- I see no rule in Theory supporting an alphabetic order naming as justification for FET, as was done in the proposal for FET (quote: /"FET", simply because "F" comes after E/ ) Therefore, apart from sharing the EE with EEST and EET, EEFT seems more rule based. -- Tobias Conradi Rheinsberger Str. 18 10115 Berlin Germany http://tobiasconradi.com/
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. 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. (I had initially thought of proposing "EEET", for "East of Eastern European Time", but decided that was too clever....)
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
I'd concur with Paul Eggert and suggest forego building a theory for this. This is a clear once-only case, and should be discussed as such, I think. -Yury On 09/22/2011 10:45 PM, Tobias Conradi wrote:
The proposal EEFT keeps the EE of EET and EEST. It is also more in line with existing naming rules in the Theory file, quoting Theory: ...
On 09/22/2011 10:45 PM, Tobias Conradi wrote:
The proposal EEFT keeps the EE of EET and EEST. It is also more in line with existing naming rules in the Theory file, quoting Theory: ...
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasievich@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd concur with Paul Eggert and suggest forego building a theory for this. That FT means forward time was emailed to the tz-list, this act could be regarded as theory building. But I wouldn't regard writing the theory down as building one.
Since it was you who proposed that FT means forward time, did you with your last email intend to withdraw your proposal?
This is a clear once-only case, and should be discussed as such, I think. I am one of those that cannot predict the future.
If one writes the meaning into the Theory file, it can be marked there as currently only used by EEFT, but the the next time such a situation of "forward time" occurs people can find it. Some people may have all the theory in their head, but there it is in danger of getting changed without notice. If the theories behind the tz database are written down into the Theory file, at least other people can check the theories and find any changes by using diff tools. My reworded proposal for the Theory file is: -------- All abbreviations end in "T". Some generic endings are: - MT for mean time (e.g. GMT), - ST for summer time (e.g. BST, CEST), - DST for double summer time (e.g. BDST, MDST) - FT for forward time (permanent summer time, only used for EEFT). The strings are also used in zone abbreviations without having these meanings, e.g. AFT = Afghanistan Time, ALMT = Alma-Ata Time, IST = Indian Standard Time. Zones that use ST to mean standard time commonly use DT to mean daylight [saving] time, e.g. EST, EDT in North America. -------- -- Tobias Conradi Rheinsberger Str. 18 10115 Berlin Germany http://tobiasconradi.com/tobias_conradi
I would think EEET (Eastern Eastern European Time or something in that direction) would be intuitively understandable. Could be thought to be Eastern European Extended daylight saving Time too. Or just use EEST. Because that is already the name for that offset. Unique, well known and in use. Mmm.. EEFT may make one wonder what the F is that F there for.. Regards, Jaakko -- Foreca Ltd Jaakko.Hyvatti@foreca.com Tammasaarenkatu 5, FI-00180 Helsinki, Finland http://www.foreca.com
Well, I still support my proposal for EEFT (East Europe Forward Time). My argument is EEFT looks a lot like the previous denotation (EEST/EEDT) and is in fact based on it, and gets sensible precedence in lists, and is easily memorized once explained in tzdata record. Also, the new element is stylistically neutral and doesn't introduce extraneous concepts. E.g., the entity described isn't prevailingly "Eastern Eastern", like in EEET proposal (Kaliningrad, Belarus, Ukraine). Also, it seems fairly good English (compared to FET). I'm just against introducing a "theory" for this. This is, by now, a once-only action, and as we can't read the future, why bother with anticipating? Even so, "forward" means just "moved forward", "in advance"; but equvalising this to daylight saving, as in Tobias theory proposal, seems somewhat erroneous. -Yury
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasievich@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I still support my proposal for EEFT (East Europe Forward Time).
My argument is EEFT looks a lot like the previous denotation (EEST/EEDT) and is in fact based on it, and gets sensible precedence in lists, Agreed.
Also, the new element is stylistically neutral and doesn't introduce extraneous concepts. It introduces the concept of forward time.
E.g., the entity described isn't prevailingly "Eastern Eastern", like in EEET proposal (Kaliningrad, Belarus, Ukraine). Yes, maybe better to stay away from Eastern Eastern, since Moscow is even more Eastern.
Also, it seems fairly good English (compared to FET). And FET has only one E.
I'm just against introducing a "theory" for this. It was you who introduced: FT = forward time.
This is, by now, a once-only action, and as we can't read the future, why bother with anticipating? Because careful working can reduce the chance of having to deal with extra problems in the future.
Anyway, I just intended to write down what you proposed. No theory building beyond your theory.
Even so, "forward" means just "moved forward", "in advance"; but equvalising this to daylight saving, as in Tobias theory proposal, seems somewhat erroneous. If calling it permanent summer time in the side note is the issue, one could simply remove that from the FT line, it would then read:
"FT for forward time (only used for EEFT)." Here is version 3 of my proposal: -------- Some generic endings are: - T for time - MT for mean time (e.g. GMT), - ST for summer time (e.g. BST, CEST), - DST for double summer time (e.g. BDST, MDST) - FT for forward time (only used for EEFT). The strings are also used in zone abbreviations without having these meanings, e.g. AFT = Afghanistan Time, ALMT = Alma-Ata Time, IST = Indian Standard Time. Zones that use ST to mean standard time commonly use DT to mean daylight [saving] time, e.g. EST, EDT in North America. -------- -- Tobias Conradi Rheinsberger Str. 18 10115 Berlin Germany http://tobiasconradi.com/tobias_conradi
On 09/23/2011 03:52 PM, Tobias Conradi wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Yury Tarasievich ...
I'm just against introducing a "theory" for this. It was you who introduced: FT = forward time.
Oh. ...
Anyway, I just intended to write down what you proposed. No theory building beyond your theory. ... If calling it permanent summer time in the side note is the issue, one could simply remove that from the FT line, it would then read:
"FT for forward time (only used for EEFT)."
Here is version 3 of my proposal: ...
Seems okay. Indeed, in such formulation that might potentially denote any timezone set forward of standard time. I'd agree with that. -Yury
On 09/23/11 05:52, Tobias Conradi wrote:
If calling it permanent summer time in the side note is the issue
It's more than that. It's that the whole notion of "forward time" is questionable. There's no need for a new notion that means "This location is one hour ahead of where it used to be, and this is a permanent change." All one needs to say is "This location has changed time zones." Changing time zones is not that unusual. It happens reasonably often, and we've dealt with it before.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
On 09/23/11 05:52, Tobias Conradi wrote:
If calling it permanent summer time in the side note is the issue
It's more than that. It's that the whole notion of "forward time" is questionable. How so? Isn't it forward with respect to EET?
There's no need for a new notion that means "This location is one hour ahead of where it used to be, and this is a permanent change." Says Paul.
All one needs to say is "This location has changed time zones." This does not look like an abbreviation
Changing time zones is not that unusual. It happens reasonably often, and we've dealt with it before. But ever by using alphabetical order as a justification, as with the FET proposal "F comes after E"?
All dealings I see where abbreviation change was involved and generic meaning contained are: - xMT - mean time - xST - summer time - xDT - daylight saving time - xDST - double summer time -- Tobias Conradi Rheinsberger Str. 18 10115 Berlin Germany http://tobiasconradi.com/tobias_conradi
> All dealings I see where abbreviation change was involved and generic > meaning contained are: > - xMT - mean time > - xST - summer time > - xDT - daylight saving time > - xDST - double summer time I forgot: - xST - standard time -- Tobias Conradi Rheinsberger Str. 18 10115 Berlin Germany http://tobiasconradi.com/tobias_conradi
Remember that for all of these cases (and even for those in Russia as a whole), the updates to the tz database have been codified as a switch to a * new* standard time zone with no DST, rather than as keeping the old time zone with *permanent* DST. (Indeed, it seems from a cursory review that the wordings of the relevant bits of legislation are also better reflected by this idiom.) The notion of perpetually calling this "summer time" (as EEST) or "forward time" (as EEFT) is silly, since it's observed as the same standard year-round. If one were to ask a reasonably knowledgeable person on the street for their current time and time zone, I doubt they'd qualify it with "but we're on DST now and the whole year" or similar phrasing. Even if they did so in the short term, if you asked them again after the change has been in place for a couple of years, such qualifiers would seem even more preposterous. The time is simply "the time." (Of course, if common usage controverts this reasonable assumption, we should obviously go with that instead. But it's been six months in the case of Russia and no such usage has been brought to this list's attention.) Since this year-round standard is effectively a *new* standard, a new nomenclature is indeed necessary as a new zone has been created. While the reasoning presented for "FET" is perhaps weak, and it may not be the *most*reasonable answer, it's important to keep in mind that it solves the problem in a manner that is *not un*reasonable. UTC+3 was not a standard offset within Europe prior to this change; now it is. Since this isn't a change to an existing zone, we're not really concerned with the "suffix": "-ET" for "European Time" remains appropriate since it's consistent with the other standard European zones. The question lies in the "prefix": Having seen nothing better, "F-" can do for now. I admit I'm not thrilled with "FET", but I wholeheartedly support it as the most reasonable and thought-out proposal thusfar. -- Tim Parenti On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:50, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
On 09/23/11 05:52, Tobias Conradi wrote:
If calling it permanent summer time in the side note is the issue
It's more than that. It's that the whole notion of "forward time" is questionable. There's no need for a new notion that means "This location is one hour ahead of where it used to be, and this is a permanent change." All one needs to say is "This location has changed time zones."
Changing time zones is not that unusual. It happens reasonably often, and we've dealt with it before.
On 09/23/2011 09:45 PM, Tim Parenti wrote: ...
The notion of perpetually calling this "summer time" (as EEST) or "forward time" (as EEFT) is silly, since it's observed as the same standard year-round. If one were to ask a reasonably knowledgeable person on the street for their current time and time zone, I doubt ...
Isn't this going too far? Silly, indeed? One might call silly, or at least unbased, the assertion of "FET" being "the most reasonable and thought-out proposal thus far". Reasonable? Not because it replaces the *established* "EE.T" pattern to something completely different? Thought-out? Not because of the "F-" prefix being something which "might do for now"? Because somebody haven't seen nothing better" (better how)? Frankly, I thought the tzdata purpose is to provide short and reasonably informative denotations of the timezones, for the software which requires such entity. What person on the street might know about such denotations is, frankly, unimportant. What person using the TZ entities might know of this, is, on the other hand, of some importance. After all, why bother with abbreviated denotations at all? GMT+3 might nicely do for Europe/Minsk etc. But if there has to be such thing as the abbreviature, let it make sense to its users in the first place. -Yury
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Yury Tarasievich <yury.tarasievich@gmail.com> wrote:
After all, why bother with abbreviated denotations at all? GMT+3 might nicely do for Europe/Minsk etc. IIRC UTC and not GMT is the basis for most time legislation that is currently in place.
But if there has to be such thing as the abbreviature, let it make sense to its users in the first place.
Agreed. Which could lead to the question who are the users? The Theory file does not make any statement about that. I thought people when communicating between geographic areas with different offset observance might use it. I.e. not people "on the street" within an area observing same offset rules. -- Tobias Conradi Rheinsberger Str. 18 10115 Berlin Germany http://tobiasconradi.com/tobias_conradi
On Fri 2011-09-23T22:53:10 +0200, Tobias Conradi hath writ:
IIRC UTC and not GMT is the basis for most time legislation that is currently in place.
It would be interesting to find reliable indicators about whether UTC or GMT is the basis in any given region. Even recently I've seen official decrees using the geographic terms "meridian" and "Greenwich". -- Steve Allen <sla@ucolick.org> WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855 1156 High Street Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m
On 09/24/2011 12:01 AM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Fri 2011-09-23T22:53:10 +0200, Tobias Conradi hath writ:
IIRC UTC and not GMT is the basis for most time legislation that is currently in place.
It would be interesting to find reliable indicators about whether UTC or GMT is the basis in any given region. Even recently I've seen official decrees using the geographic terms "meridian" and "Greenwich".
The (semantic) distinction between Greenwich and Universal time is just one of those subtleties that gets usually lost in these parts of the world. The expression "(time) by Greenwich" (/po Grinvichu/) is established in the language (which's why I used it instead of UTC, which was incorrect technically). In fact, the standard nomenclature here (in Russian) is "0th meridian" and "time belts". There are 24 "time belts" (/chasovoy poyas/) approximately corresponding to 15 deg. wide meridianal stripes. As to the potential users: I'd guess that almost the only folks *here* really knowing the meaning of EEST/EEDT abbreviature are the IT specialists and most of the unix users. Windows users know how to select UTC+2 (Minsk,Athens,...) from the list. -Yury
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Tim Parenti <tim@timtimeonline.com> wrote:
Remember that for all of these cases (and even for those in Russia as a whole), the updates to the tz database have been codified as a switch to a new standard time zone with no DST, rather than as keeping the old time zone with permanent DST. (Indeed, it seems from a cursory review that the wordings of the relevant bits of legislation are also better reflected by this idiom.)
The notion of perpetually calling this "summer time" (as EEST) or "forward time" (as EEFT) is silly, What definition of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/silly did you mean?
Also I do not see any reason in Theory file that says the abbreviations, names, terms should be changed, so they cannot be used perpetually. Actually stable names that can be used "perpetually" seem to be an objective of the tz database. Greenwich Mean Time is perpetually abbreviated GMT. British Summer Time is perpetually abbreviated BST and British Double Summer Time BDST.
since it's observed as the same standard year-round. Do you mean it is silly to call a time summer time outside summer? Then there is a lot of silliness in the tz database, i.e. EEST would make it very consistent.
If one were to ask a reasonably knowledgeable person on the street for their current time and time zone, I doubt they'd qualify it with "but we're on DST now and the whole year" or similar phrasing. Did you make that test for FET in the streets of Minsk?
Even if they did so in the short term, if you asked them again after the change has been in place for a couple of years, such qualifiers would seem even more preposterous. Here we go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_time
The time is simply "the time." Space and dot is not allowed per Theory file in abbreviations.
(Of course, if common usage controverts this reasonable assumption, we should obviously go with that instead. But it's been six months in the case of Russia and no such usage has been brought to this list's attention.) But the usage of FET has?
Since this year-round standard is effectively a new standard, a new nomenclature is indeed necessary as a new zone has been created. While the reasoning presented for "FET" is perhaps weak, and it may not be the most reasonable answer, it's important to keep in mind that it solves the problem in a manner that is not unreasonable. Of course alphabetic order (F comes after E) can be taken as a reasoning. But so can FT = forward time. While the former has no similarity with anything else in the Theory file, the latter has.
UTC+3 was not a standard offset within Europe prior to this change; tzdata2011i\europe says otherwise for zones: Europe/Tallinn Europe/Minsk Europe/Riga Europe/Vilnius Europe/Chisinau Europe/Kaliningrad Europe/Moscow Europe/Volgograd Europe/Samara Europe/Istanbul Europe/Kiev Europe/Uzhgorod Europe/Zaporozhye Europe/Simferopol
now it is. Since this isn't a change to an existing zone, of course it changes existing zones one is Europe/Minsk
we're not really concerned with the "suffix": "-ET" for "European Time" remains appropriate And Belarus was geographically transferred from Eastern Europe to F-landian Europe by legislation on standard time, there for one E from EET had to be dropped?
since it's consistent with the other standard European zones. The question lies in the "prefix": Having seen nothing better, "F-" can do for now. Which is inconsistent with any other standard European zones, which are called Central ET, Eastern ET, Western ET....
I admit I'm not thrilled with "FET", but I wholeheartedly support it as the most reasonable and thought-out proposal thusfar. I see no proof for "most reasonable and thought-out proposal". Why not calling it DET, D just comes before E in the alphabet?
-- Tobias Conradi Rheinsberger Str. 18 10115 Berlin Germany http://tobiasconradi.com/tobias_conradi
Paul Eggert said:
If calling it permanent summer time in the side note is the issue It's more than that. It's that the whole notion of "forward time" is questionable. There's no need for a new notion that means "This location is one hour ahead of where it used to be, and this is a permanent change."
I would have read the notion as "this location is one hour ahead of solar mean time all year round". If we have to have an abbreviation, EEFT feels better than FET to me. Is there no term that refers to Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine collectively? -- 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
participants (8)
-
Anuko Support -
Clive D.W. Feather -
Jaakko Hyvätti -
Paul Eggert -
Steve Allen -
Tim Parenti -
Tobias Conradi -
Yury Tarasievich