Ken Murchison wrote in <e90e1cbb-8882-2796-a4d2-153370128f4e@fastmailteam.com>: |And here is a link to the diffs between this draft and RFC 8536 |<https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?url_1=https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc\ |/rfc8536.txt&url_2=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-murchison-rfc85\ |36bis-06.txt> Thanks for this link. I wonder whether it would make sense to avoid the link to github? Ie, there is [EGGERT-TZ] "History for tz", October 2018, <https://github.com/eggert/tz/commits/master/tzfile.5> but since there is also [tz-link] Eggert, P. and A. Olson, "Sources for Time Zone and Daylight Saving Time Data", 2018, <https://www.iana.org/time-zones/repository/tz-link.html>. (broken btw) i would rather linke these two into the latest release like [EGGERT-TZ] "History for tz", https://data.iana.org/time-zones/tzdb/tzfile.5.txt ... [tz-link] Eggert, P. and A. Olson, "Sources for Time Zone and Daylight Saving Time Data", <https://data.iana.org/time-zones/tzdb/tz-link.html> --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)

Kim Davies wrote in <ZAelqdRsVySL5fIA@KIDA-9190.local>: |Quoting Steffen Nurpmeso via tz on Tuesday March 07, 2023: |> |> [tz-link] Eggert, P. and A. Olson, "Sources for Time Zone and |> Daylight Saving Time Data", 2018, |> <https://www.iana.org/time-zones/repository/tz-link.html>. |> (broken btw) |> ... |> <https://data.iana.org/time-zones/tzdb/tz-link.html> | |Could you clarify what is broken so we can address it? (In our |provisioning these files should contain identical content.) $ curl -L -I https://www.iana.org/time-zones/repository HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)

Quoting Steffen Nurpmeso on Tuesday March 07, 2023:

|> <https://www.iana.org/time-zones/repository/tz-link.html>.

$ curl -L -I https://www.iana.org/time-zones/repository

That appears to me to be a different URL. https://www.iana.org/time-zones/repository/tz-link.html is functioning. If you wish to link to the main page, it would be https://www.iana.org/time-zones and https://iana.org/tz will work as a shortcut. kim

On 2023-03-08 07:50, Ken Murchison via tz wrote:

Attached is the diff between my working copy and -06.  Comments and suggested text welcome. I wonder if we need to add a definition of "leap second table expiration". On 3/7/23 5:59 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:

...

In rereading the draft I found a couple of technical issues. 1. Most of this draft was written before the recent announcement that leap seconds are possibly being discontinued. As I understand it, this proposal is likely but not yet set in stone. Perhaps we need a sentence or two about this in the draft? Something like the following at the first mention of leap second expiry: "If leap seconds become permanently discontinued, as requested by the General Conference on Weights and Measures[*], the leap second table SHOULD NOT expire since it will not be updated in the foreseeable future." and cite Resolution 4 of the 27th CGPM (2022) <https://www.bipm.org/en/cgpm-2022/resolution-4>. 2. The use of TZ strings like 'XXX3EDT4,0/0,J365/23' is described confusingly, since 3.3.1 says that this is not an extension to POSIX (i.e., we're just spelling out what POSIX says, so this is not a TZ string extension), whereas the title of 3.3.1 says "TZ String Extensions". Because section 4 says a writer should generate a version 3 file (which can contain TZ string extensions) only if necessary, it's too easy to read this as saying that if the TZif file contains a TZ string like 'XXX3EDT4,0/0,J365/23' then it must be at least version 3 - which is not how current zic behaves (it's just version 2). (This confusion is my fault; sorry.) To fix this, how about if we move the text and example in the bullet point "* DST is considered to be in effect all year ..." up from section 3.3.1 to section 3.3, with minor wordsmithing to continue to make it clear that we're only spelling out POSIX more explicitly, not extending it. As a result of this wordsmithing, there will only be one POSIX extension (extending hours to -167 through 167). I suppose we should also should note that a future version of POSIX is likely to adopt the POSIX extension documented in 3.3.1. Even if that happens, 3.3.1 will still considered to be an extension, in that TZif files using it will still need to be marked version 3 or later.

Suggest using alternative rather than Daylight Savings Time as under current POSIX Base Definitions 8.3 Other Environment Variables TZ: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap08.html#tag... "std and dst Indicate no less than three, nor more than {TZNAME_MAX}, bytes that are the designation for the standard (std) or the alternative (dst -such as Daylight Savings Time) timezone. Only std is required; if dst is missing, then the alternative time does not apply in this locale."... as the alternative can be positive or negative (Ireland) and outside English North America, is mostly referred to as Summer or Winter time, or some equivalent expression in the local language, often advanced, normal, or retarded time in Latin languages e.g. NRC/CNR pubs for French Canada for an alternative: https://nrc.canada.ca/fr/certifications-evaluations-normes/heure-officielle-... [default size may be large - <ctrl>-0 often normalizes!] -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada La perfection est atteinte Perfection is achieved non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter not when there is no more to add mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer but when there is no more to cut -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

On 2023-03-09 10:28, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:

Brian Inglis wrote: |On 2023-03-08 07:50, Ken Murchison wrote: |> Attached is the diff between my working copy and -06.  Comments and \ |> suggested |> text welcome. ... |Suggest using alternative rather than Daylight Savings Time as under \ |current |POSIX Base Definitions 8.3 Other Environment Variables TZ: | |https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap08.html\ |#tag_08_03 | |"std and dst |Indicate no less than three, nor more than {TZNAME_MAX}, bytes that \ |are the |designation for the standard (std) or the alternative (dst -such as \ |Daylight |Savings Time) timezone. Only std is required; if dst is missing, then the |alternative time does not apply in this locale."...

I _think_ this is objected by kre and fine-tuning is on the way? (I am not really looking into this issue. I never dealt with these strings, but only ever used identifiers.)

POSIX is kre et al and this wording is already in use, and I do not remember seeing any edits to this in reports. The RFC addressed is IANA/IETF by the poster, including PE and ADO, so I suggest the wording and usage be aligned for accuracy and clarity. I would also be nice if TZ abbreviations and TZ or zone identifiers were used to describe what are sometimes both confusingly called TZ names. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada La perfection est atteinte Perfection is achieved non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter not when there is no more to add mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer but when there is no more to cut -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

On 3/9/23 08:30, Brian Inglis via tz wrote:

Suggest using alternative rather than Daylight Savings Time as under current POSIX

Current POSIX is confused about this, as it uses "alternative time" or "alternative timezone" for this concept (e.g., in its description of the TZ variable), but it also uses "alternative time" to mean something quite different in functions like strftime which deal with locale alternative time representations. Furthermore POSIX often uses "Daylight Savings Time" with an "s" (e.g., in its description of time.h, or in functions like mktime) to mean the same thing as "alternative time", and at least once it omits the "s" (in a strptime example). Contrast this with ISO C, which constently uses "Daylight Saving Time" (without the "s") for the same notion. Also contrast POSIX's use of the word "timezone" (meaning just an abbreviation and a UT offset) with TZDB's use (meaning a tzdb Zone, something more complicated). POSIX doesn't seem to be consistent about this usage, though: often "timezone" seems to mean the entire contents of the TZ variable, which is closer to TZDB's meaning. Furthermore, POSIX uses the term "standard time" the same way that RFC 8536 does, but as far as I can see ISO C has no name for that concept. Fun stuff, no? With this confusion in mind, it might be better for RFC 8536 to stick with its current terms "standard time" and "daylight saving time". It'd take nontrivial wordsmithing to change the terminology, with some errors likely to creep in during the process, and it's not clear that the benefits would be worth the costs. Admittedly (and as Robert noted), the phrases "standard time" and "daylight saving time" are poorly chosen. DST obviously doesn't save any daylight; and a government-mandated standard for civil time includes "daylight saving time" as well as "standard time". However, I'm not sure it's worth the hassle to try to improve on these phrases in RFC 8536, especially considering what we've seen of POSIX's problems in its attempts to use a different terminology.

On 3/8/23 06:50, Ken Murchison wrote:

I wonder if we need to add a definition of "leap second table expiration".

That wouldn't hurt. Perhaps something like the following in the Section 2 definitions? ----- Leap Second Table: A record of a series of consecutive leap seconds. Leap Second Table Expiration: The cutoff time for a leap second table, such that the table does not record the presence or absence of leap seconds on or after the cutoff. For example, a leap second table published in January, which predicts the presence or absence of a leap second at June's end, might expire in mid-December because when the table is published it is not known whether a leap second will occur at December's end. ----- PS. I see that the draft sometimes says "leap second" and sometimes "leap-second". I assume that follows some editorial rule that I don't remember. The above text might need hyphenization to fix that.

Brooks Harris replied to Paul Eggert:

...

PS. I see that the draft sometimes says "leap second" and sometimes "leap-second". I assume that follows some editorial rule that I don't remember. The above text might need hyphenization to fix that.

ITU-R Recommendation 460, the specification of the leap-second, spells "leap-second" with the hyphen. I feel that's the "proper" spelling because it comes from the ITU-R document.

Most usage in American English, outside of standards documents, trends toward “leap second,“ just as it trends toward “leap year” rather than “leap-year.” The general rule (again in American English) is to spell a compound like this as two words when using it as an ordinary noun, but hyphenate it when using it as an attributive noun. So you would have “leap-second rules” that determine the application of “leap seconds.” The attributive-noun convention (see what I did there?) is helpful to disambiguate phrases that contain long strings of nouns. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_compound for more. ITU-R English is often not common, idiomatic American English, so your priorities may differ if you need to follow European English (or if you prefer old-fashioned usage, as in the base-ball game to be played to-day). -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org

Brooks Harris wrote:

Is "leap second" *exactly* the same as "leap-second"?

God, I hope so. -- Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org

On 2023-03-09 14:59, Steve Allen wrote:

On Thu 2023-03-09T13:30:52-0800 Paul Eggert hath writ:

...

Leap Second Table: A record of a series of consecutive leap seconds.

Leap Second Table Expiration: The cutoff time for a leap second table, such that the table does not record the presence or absence of leap seconds on or after the cutoff. For example, a leap second table published in January, which predicts the presence or absence of a leap second at June's end, might expire in mid-December because when the table is published it is not known whether a leap second will occur at December's end.

Be aware that this six month expiration cycle is a leftover from the Soviet demands at the inception of leap-seconds and is not explicit in any regulatory document. It is tradition, albeit long established.

Possibly a government which understands the realistic limitations of its, and others, bureaucracies; rather than one which expects its petulant last minute demands be immediately satisfied by everyone else in the world affected slaving tirelessly to offset their inability to think and plan six months ahead. ;^> [OTOH I worked on a project where the org took until the project development deadline a year later to decide which set of rules it followed^Wwanted to follow^Wchose to pick^Wneeded to use, all of which had to be implemented, tested, and deployment tested with all options, so they could decide at the last minute, and also throw in some other demands which blew their own deadline!] -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada La perfection est atteinte Perfection is achieved non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter not when there is no more to add mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer but when there is no more to cut -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry