Paul Eggert writes: | Your evidence and Brittain's letter both suggest that we should change | the Australians abbreviations in the tz data. However, before | changing things, I would like to hear from other Australians about | this, as I don't have personal expertise on this apparently | controversial subject. Can other Australians please comment, if you | care to? Thanks. I have previously requested this change (and been shouted down by people who seemed to think that some holy grail of "correct" behaviour that they believed in was more important than doing something meaningful). I reiterate as strongly as possible that I want to see AEST/AEDT adopted for the eastern Australian zones.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Paul Eggert wrote:

Thanks for your well-researched letter.

You're welcome - sorry again that it's so long, but I didn't want to just say, "Hey, I reckon they should be changed" without giving some evidence that I wasn't dreaming up those abbreviations by myself.

That summary contains a December 2000 letter from Richard Brittain of the Australian National Standards Commission endorsing a suggestion identical to yours. I had been meaning to bring this up on the tz list at some point and your letter provides a good opportunity.

I have read some of the NSC's papers on time standards, which lead me to browsing the 1991(-ish) archives of the Commonwealth Hansard - the last instance the Federal Government tried to nationally legislate something about time. Basically what happened was that politicians representing States that do not adhere to daylight savings at all (such as Queensland) did not wish to see daylight savings imposed on them and so fought against the bill (one of the things the bill proposed to do was reduce the number of time zones across Australia). The end result is that the Commonwealth left the issue of time with the States and so the confusion about time zone names and abbreviations continues. [...use of term "daylight savings" vs "summer time"...]

I suspect that Mr Mackin was referring to the suffix used in time zone time zone names (e.g. phrases like "Eastern Daylight Time" versus "Eastern Summer Time"), not the general notion of daylight saving time. This may explain part of the discrepancy between his experience and yours.

Ahh, fair enough. I honestly didn't mean any disrespect to Mr Mackin, just disagreed with what I thought he was saying...

The Australian Tranport Safety Bureau uses EST/ESuT; see e.g. <http://www.basi.gov.au/occurs/ob200000765.htm>. I assume the "Su" stands for "Summer". I've never seen that abbreviation before...

Me neither! It could be a correction for the "EST/EST" ambiguity in the existing tz database...

...but it is apparently common enough in Australia that Novell supports it; see <http://www.ithowto.com/Novell/clienttime.htm>.

Probably as with PostgreSQL, someone's come up with their own "corrected" time zone abbreviations. Interesting to see both "AEST" and "AEDT" also included.

One more thought. An important goal of changing the abbreviations is to reduce ambiguity. "AEST" is ambiguous in practice, since some people use AEST/AEDT and others use AET/AEST. (ABC News uses both. :-)

Quite right! The best one could hope for is whatever seems "most common" (and yes, I accept that this is hard to measure). I hypothesise (and readily accept others may disagree) that in addition to the lack of standards, I suspect the time zone database's use of "EST" for both standard and summer times has contributed (even if just a little) to people creating their own abbreviations.

One solution would be to use unambiguous abbreviation pairs like AET/AEDT or AET/AESuT, but as far as I can tell these combinations are hardly ever used in practice.

I'm sure there's *someone* out there using them, just as with all the other variations. Apart from "EST" or "EDT" in various corners, I believe "AEST" and "AEDT" have the next most legitimate claim to being "in common use". On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Eric Ulevik wrote:

But the most common case is Eastern Standard Time / Eastern Summer Time.

Both terms are used in a local context, most assuredly; however, their obvious (EST) abbreviations are not necessarily "most common". For example, if Channel Nine is announcing the broadcast times for the cricket they will say something like "2:30pm eastern standard time" - the "Australian" is redundant/assumed in this context because it's not of relevance to New Zealand or anyone else. In cases whereby things get too complicated, they will simply say, "Check your local guides for details". Yet, if you look specifically at abbreviations, "AEST" and "AEDT" are quite common (even in Nine's own electronic news service); not universal, sure, but that's due to the lack of standards so everyone's making up their own. [...pause...] Okay, I just conducted a totally unscientific experiment with two colleagues who happened to be walking by (yeah, hard to prove, but anyway)... they both agreed on "EST" in the local context because "A" (Australian) was redundant, but would both use "AEST" in the global context. For summer/daylight savings time, one would use "EDT" whilst the other would use "EDST" - again, local context, prefixing with an "A" for the global context. When asked if they would recognise or accept "AEST" for standard time and "AEDT" for summer/daylight savings time, they both were happy to accept those abbreviations (since they had already encountered them elsewhere, such as the sources I've previously given as usage examples).

It's my view that the tz database should attempt to record current practice, rather than invent new systems.

I hope I have demonstrated in some small way (short of pointing to every URL, news clipping or other document that ever has, or ever will, use "AEST" or "AEDT") that by switching from "EST/EST" to "AEST/AEDT" is not really inventing a "new system" but just updating the "common usage" (acknowledged, not universal - but you'll never get a universal usage in the absence of a standard anyway). I don't know what sort of poll would be sufficient for the keepers of the tz database to decide one way or another; you could post to a newsgroup or two, but the results could always be argued to be skewed towards a certain type of user anyway. Whatever decision you ultimately make, thank you for at least being open to comment and discussion on the matter (unlike certain others). Cheers.. dave

Earlier today, Robert Elz wrote:

This would be nice, except that EST/EST is correct.

By what definition? There is plenty of evidence to indicate that AEST/AEDT is in common use and even the quoted (not by me) message from the National Standards Commission suggests that AEST/AEDT is not only valid, but correct.

It uses daulight savings only in a few headings, etc - the actual content of the act (had you bothered to quote that) uses and defines "New South Wales Summer Time".

"Bothered"? The references to various sections of the Act plus a URL pointing to the Act in its entirety didn't make the original message long enough? If one was to be as literal as you and John would prefer, then the time zone abbreviations would probably be "NSWST/NSWST" for both standard time and summer time (see part 1, section 2 of the Act); the fact that *nobody* uses those abbreviations in practice has to call into question the whole justification for using "EST/EST". Just to be clear, here is the relevant part of the definitions in the Act: "In this Act: [...] New South Wales standard time means standard time as fixed by section 3. New South Wales summer time means summer time as fixed by section 7." No mention at all of "eastern" anything.

The Victorian Act (when I looked this up way back when this issue was first relevant) defines Eastern Summer Time (I think the Vic parliament felt it had a mandate to legislate for all of Eastern Australia... or perhaps hoped that it would at least be uniform.)

How does this relate to the abbreviations used for "Australia/Sydney" in the time zone database? ;-)

I haven't checked it recently and don't have a URL for the Vic act, but I expect it is still pretty similar.

I am only guessing that this is still correct given that it also shows up on a search of the Victorian Government's Web sites: "Summer Time Act 1972" http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol%5fact/sta1972147/ Herein the definitions are of "standard time" and "summer time", not "eastern" anything; again, if taken literally then the abbreviations for Victoria would be simply "ST/ST". Honestly, Robert, the legislation is not all that useful in determining time zone names or abbreviations (for the purposes of the tz database anyway) - all the laws do is give authority to the fact that those States will observe daylight savings time during summer, that's all. In my own defence at quoting from the NSW Act, I was arguing against the (only perceived?) suggestion that the term "daylight saving" is never used in Australia, that's all. Even a search for "Eastern Standard Time" on the Victorian Government's Web site (www.vic.gov.au) turns up references to "AEST" and "Australian Eastern Standard Time" (and yes, other variations for standard and summer time too). Heck, searching AustLII's and SCALEplus' databases (and no, I'm not going to bother quoting anything this time) shows appearances in legal proceedings of the following phrases/abbreviations in relation to time: - "AEST" in the Federal Court of Australia and the Migration Review Tribunal of Australia; - "AEDT" in the Supreme Court of New South Wales; - "Australian Eastern Standard Time" in the Federal Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Victoria; and, - "Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time" in the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court of Australia{*}. {*} Interestingly, here both the full name and a different abbreviation are given; the case is BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union [2000] FCA 1853 (15 December 2000), where Justice Kiefel wrote (presumably obiter dictum): Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time ("AEDST") Further, some legislation *relies* on these abbreviations and phrases; for example, the Commonwealth Corporations (Unlisted Property Trusts) Amendment Act 1991 No. 200 of 1991, section 10: "'commencement' means 4.50 p.m. Australian Eastern Standard Time on 23 July" It's good enough for the courts and legislation... On the issue of whether or not the Commonwealth Government has the power to legislate time zones as a measure of commerce, clearly the NSC includes time as a measure of commerce and the Commonwealth has considered time zones within its power (which is why it tried to legislate to that effect in 1991 - see Hansard). As for "summer time" in the State legislation, this is clearly a definition for the legal purposes of interpreting the rest of the relevant Acts, not for defining common use beyond a local context (otherwise, how do you account for the Corporations Act amendment that refers to "Australian Eastern Standard Time"?). Some interesting papers on the topic of time in Australia (which at least once refer to "Eastern Standard Time") is available from the NSC: "The Australian National Time System" http://www.nsc.gov.au/PDF_Word/Info/L08.pdf "Daylight Saving" http://www.nsc.gov.au/PDF_Word/Info/L27.pdf

You will get me to accept that at exactly the same time as you get the UTS-0500 timezone name changed to "United States Eastern Standard Time" (and abbreviated as USEST).

I don't have any information on (or care about) that time zone. :-)

| Great! To get this bug fixed convince the authorities to change the laws | and regulations of the country this effects. glibc behaves correctly."

The bug is in attempting to trun a timezone string into a numeric offset - that's simply crazy.

I won't disagree with you on that point (and in case you're assuming that this is what I'm trying to do, you're wrong).

| This is clearly based on Mr Mackin's comment in the time zone database, and | as I have demonstrated is wrong (in terms of the legislation and government | use).

You attempted to, but you failed, as it is not wrong.

Given the evidence available that supports changing the time zone abbreviations from EST/EST to AEST/AEDT, by what authority do you claim to be correct? I've gone to great lengths to demonstrate that this is more than just my "personal preference" but is also in widespread (and legitimate) use; in response, you simply retort "it is wrong" and provide no evidence for this assertion. Come on, Robert - "knows and responds to everything" shouldn't be taken literally y'know... dave

Earlier today, Robert Elz wrote:

| > This would be nice, except that EST/EST is correct. | By what definition?

Just read the acts - they define summer time.

Those same Acts say absolutely nothing that supports the use of the "E"; if one were to remain true to the Acts, then the tz database is wrong in any case. The fact that the tz database uses the "E" prefix at all demonstrates that "common use" should also play a part in determining the database's contents. Let's try and summarise your position (please correct me if I have misunderstood): - You argue that the names used in relevant legislation are the only valid source for the Australian time zones, and therefore "summer time" is correct whilst "daylight( saving(s|)) time" is incorrect. For this reason, both normal and DST abbreviations should be identical. - You further argue that "EST" is correct because some no-longer valid Victorian legislation used the term "Eastern Standard Time". - Finally, you argue that until the United States, Canada and possibly Mexico change "EST" to include a country-specific prefix, then "EST" should remain in use for Australia; and besides which, there is no major revolt amongst users so it doesn't hurt to leave the abbreviations as they are. In response, my position is this: - Relying entirely on the legislation of the States and territories that observe DST (namely, ACT, NSW, VIC, SA and TAS) there is no definition of time involving the words "east", "eastern" or anything of similar meaning; references can be found on AustLII or SCALEplus: ACT: STANDARD TIME AND SUMMER TIME ACT 1972 NSW: STANDARD TIME ACT 1987 VIC: SUMMER TIME ACT 1972 SA: DAYLIGHT SAVING ACT, 1971 TAS: DAYLIGHT SAVING ACT 1968 Therefore, if relying entirely on the legislation then the tz database contains incorrect time zone names and abbreviations for the affected Australian time zones (probably all of them). - The verbatim time references (and the obvious abbreviations thereof) taken from the legislation are not widely used (if at all), as the legislation is State/territory-specific whilst most references to time that include a time zone are of a national nature. - Given that the tz database is already out-of-sync with the legislation and the legislation does not match "common use", it is only reasonable to adopt the names and abbreviations from "common use" for the tz database. - The courts have scope to interpret the meanings of time zone names or abbreviations that are not otherwise explicitly defined in legislation, therefore citing a lack of explicit legislative definition is insufficient justification for arguing that "summer time" is correct whilst "daylight( saving(s|)) time" is incorrect (cf. Latimer, P., 1994, "Australian Business Law", 13th ed - "Interpretation of Statutes"). - In common use, the terms "daylight( saving(s|)) time" are just as widespread (more so in some cases) as the term "summer time"; this includes government use. - "AEST" and "AEDT" are two of the many time zone abbreviations used by government and industry when referring to UTC+10 and UTC+11 within Australia; their use is not limited to a specific group. Examples have been provided for independent verification/refutation. - Similarly, "Australian Eastern Standard Time" and "Australian Eastern Daylight Savings Time" are phrases in widespread use (particularly the first phrase). Examples have been provided for independent verification/refutation. - There is no national standard nor universal usage of time zone names or abbreviations across Australia due to the historical reasons previously presented; therefore, it should be acceptable to, after some research, adopt what appears to be "common use". - The closest agency Australia has to a national measurement standards body is the National Standards Commission, which has indicated support for the use of "AEST" and "AEDT". Whilst Robert argues that it currently has no legislative power to decide or advise on such matters, it must be remembered that the use of EST/EST has no basis in current legislation either. - The world will not end without changing the time zone abbreviations; however, it will not end if they *are* changed. Given that some groups are starting to rely on the tz database as authoritative (wrong though that may be), it is only reasonable to reconsider whether or not EST/EST is still valid for Australian eastern time zones. - Changing zone names or abbreviations for any other country should not be a prerequisite for reconsidering Australian zone names or abbreviations. So, what happens now? It seems clear that Robert and I cannot agree and at last count it was at least two in favour of changing EST/EST to AEST/AEDT and definitely two against. Not that any further "common use" examples should really be necessary, but: - The other day in "The Daily Telegraph" (print media, newspaper) the stages for Mir's descent were noted at times clearly marked, "AEST". - On Sunday during a motorcar television broadcast, a Channel Ten announcer mentioned the time of a future broadcast being at "Australian Eastern Standard Time" (spoken in full). - Given that EST/EST for use in all Australian jurisdictions was based on Victorian legislation (the Victorian Government cannot legislate outside the State of Victoria), an exact string match of the VIC Government's Web sites for the following strings turns up: "Australian Eastern Summer Time" - 5 hits, all at the Melbourne Planetarium "Eastern Summer Time" - the same 5 hits as with "Australian" included "Australian Eastern Daylight" - 11 hits, all at the Melbourne Planetarium - 4 hits using "Australian Eastern Daylight Time" - 7 hits using "Australian Eastern Daylight Savings Time" "Eastern Daylight" - 14 hits - the same 11 hits as with "Australian" included - 1 hit from the Planetarium that has both "Australian Eastern Summer Time" and "Aust. Eastern Daylight Savings Time" on the same page - 2 hits on Victoria Government Gazettes, referring to "Eastern Daylight Savings Time" "AEST" - 59 hits (only the first results page of which was checked) - many hits from the Melbourne Planetarium again - one hit defining "AEST: Australian Eastern Standard Time" - one hit defining "AEST UTC + 10" "AEDT" - in all fairness, zero hits within the Victorian Government Web sites (see previous references for its use elsewhere) Robert asserts that the use of "Australian Eastern Standard Time" in the Commonwealth Corporations Act refers to "standard time" and that it "unambiguously [specifies] a particular time (and date)"; this is incorrect, as the Corporations Act is a *Commonwealth* (not State) Act and there is no Commonwealth definition of "standard time", thereby leaving this an ambiguous reference to each State/territory's own definition of "standard time". Clearly, for a national law, this is sheer lunacy (given that Australia spreads over at least three time zones, leading to multiple interpretations of "standard time"); anyone can reasonably determine that the legislators intended UTC+10 and that is precisely what the High Court would find under their powers for interpretation of legislation (which go beyond what is explicitly "defined" in the Acts).

Absolutely nothing (other than the fact that some people use it, and are incorrect in doing so)... It is quite clearly summer time, not daylight time

Only according to your own admitted assumptions, not in any authoritative sense. If it is acceptable to pervert the definitions in the legislation to become EST/EST, then it is equally acceptable to follow common practice and update these abbreviations to AEST/AEDT. Cheers.. dave