RE: proposed tz patches for Indiana, New Brunswick, Gaza, etc.
I am inclined to think you should implement the letter of the law rather than guessing what DOT "really" meant. Either that or ask DOT for clarification. I hate to say it, but I've been involved in similar things that became a legal issue and the difference can matter. Unfortunately, this conflicts with the deadline. Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but I'd ask. ++PLS -----Original Message----- From: tz-request@elsie.nci.nih.gov [mailto:tz-request@elsie.nci.nih.gov] On Behalf Of Deborah Goldsmith Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 7:08 PM To: tz@lecserver.nci.nih.gov Subject: Re: proposed tz patches for Indiana, New Brunswick, Gaza, etc. On Jan 20, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
+ -5:00 - EST 2006 Apr 2 2:00 + -6:00 US C%sT
For all the Indiana counties that are switching from ET to CT, shouldn't this be: + -5:00 - EST 2006 Apr 2 2:00 + -5:00 - CDT 2006 Apr 2 3:00 + -6:00 US C%sT so that the time will proceed smoothly from 1:59:59 AM EST to 2:00:00 AM CDT, as proposed by Paul Eggert? With the rules the way they are now, the time will go from 1:59:59 AM EST to 1:00:00 AM CST, then from 1:59:59 AM CST to 3:00:00 AM CDT. Personally, I'm fine either way. Deborah
For my deadline, I went with the letter of the law. We'll pick up whatever the final decision is later on. Thanks, Deborah On Jan 20, 2006, at 6:46 PM, Paul Schauble wrote:
I am inclined to think you should implement the letter of the law rather than guessing what DOT "really" meant. Either that or ask DOT for clarification. I hate to say it, but I've been involved in similar things that became a legal issue and the difference can matter.
Unfortunately, this conflicts with the deadline. Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but I'd ask.
++PLS
-----Original Message----- From: tz-request@elsie.nci.nih.gov [mailto:tz- request@elsie.nci.nih.gov] On Behalf Of Deborah Goldsmith Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 7:08 PM To: tz@lecserver.nci.nih.gov Subject: Re: proposed tz patches for Indiana, New Brunswick, Gaza, etc.
On Jan 20, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
+ -5:00 - EST 2006 Apr 2 2:00 + -6:00 US C%sT
For all the Indiana counties that are switching from ET to CT, shouldn't this be:
+ -5:00 - EST 2006 Apr 2 2:00 + -5:00 - CDT 2006 Apr 2 3:00 + -6:00 US C%sT
so that the time will proceed smoothly from 1:59:59 AM EST to 2:00:00 AM CDT, as proposed by Paul Eggert?
With the rules the way they are now, the time will go from 1:59:59 AM EST to 1:00:00 AM CST, then from 1:59:59 AM CST to 3:00:00 AM CDT. Personally, I'm fine either way.
Deborah
participants (2)
-
Deborah Goldsmith -
Paul Schauble