Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:20:39 -0800 (PST) From: Robbin Kawabata <Robbin.Kawabata@eng.sun.com>
I think etcetera is OK....
On second thought you're probably right. This stuff is so obsolete now, changing it would probably add to confusion rather than subtracting it.
Note the comments in the file itself:
# We use POSIX-style signedness in the names and output, # internal-style signedness in the specifications. # For example, TZ=Etc/GMT+4 corresponds to 4 hours _behind_ UTC; # it is equivalent to TZ=GMT+4, which is implemented directly as per POSIX.
Those comments are not quite right either, and they added to my confusion. TZ=Etc/GMT+4 is not exactly equivalent to TZ=GMT+4, because they result in different abbreviations. How about if we change the above comments to be something like this instead? # We use POSIX-style signedness in the names and output, # internal-style signedness in the specifications. # For example, TZ=Etc/GMT+4 corresponds to 4 hours _behind_ UTC; # it is equivalent to TZ=GMT+4, except that it uses the abbreviation "GMT+4" # whereas TZ=GMT+4 uses the misleading abbreviation "GMT". # TZ=Etc/GMT+4 is equivalent to the TZ='<GMT+4>+4' of Draft 5 of the next # version of POSIX, but the angle-bracket notation is not yet # supported by the tz code. With the Draft 5 notation, people who # prefer the traditional time zone sign can use TZ='<GMT-4>+4'.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Paul Eggert wrote:
[skiped]
On second thought you're probably right. This stuff is so obsolete now, changing it would probably add to confusion rather than subtracting it.
Oops.. Sorry, but i can't imagine how can keeping wrong subtract confusion.
Note the comments in the file itself:
# We use POSIX-style signedness in the names and output, # internal-style signedness in the specifications. # For example, TZ=Etc/GMT+4 corresponds to 4 hours _behind_ UTC; # it is equivalent to TZ=GMT+4, which is implemented directly as per POSIX.
It's you, who said: ``Note the comments''! As it seems to me, defineing GMT+4 as Zone Etc/GMT+4 -4 - GMT+4 is a bit wrong, as it is really 4 hours _ahead_ of UTC.
[skiped]
How about if we change the above comments to be something like this instead?
[skiped]
Will this change make me happy? I want right time displayed, and i use TZ=Etc/GMT+6. Bye! P.S: I'm not in list, and i'm not an experienced enough. So, i beg you pardon in avant, if my opinion is stupid and i can't understand it by myself. Maybe i'm confused a lot, and i have to use GMT-6 ? I live in Siberia, and it is always 6 hours _later_ then GMT.
At 13:09 -0800 2001-02-12, Paul Eggert wrote:
How about if we change the above comments to be something like this instead?
# We use POSIX-style signedness in the names and output, # internal-style signedness in the specifications.
What is "internal-style signedness"? Would your "average" tz user know? How?
# For example, TZ=Etc/GMT+4 corresponds to 4 hours _behind_ UTC; # it is equivalent to TZ=GMT+4, except that it uses the abbreviation "GMT+4" # whereas TZ=GMT+4 uses the misleading abbreviation "GMT". # TZ=Etc/GMT+4 is equivalent to the TZ='<GMT+4>+4' of Draft 5 of the next # version of POSIX, but the angle-bracket notation is not yet # supported by the tz code. With the Draft 5 notation, people who # prefer the traditional time zone sign can use TZ='<GMT-4>+4'.
What is "the traditional time zone sign"? Is it consistent with "internal-style signedness"? What about UTC as opposed to GMT? Might you also say "people who prefer ISO-8601 compliant time-zone signs can use TZ='<UTC-04:00>+4' instead"? --Alex _______________ Alex LIVINGSTON IT, Australian Graduate School of Management (AGSM), UNSW SYDNEY NSW 2052 Fax: +61 2 9931-9349 / Phone: +61 2 9931-9264 / Time: UTC + 10 or 11 hours At end of today, Wednesday, February 14, time since epoch (1-1-1 at 00:00:00) = 730530 days = 2000.12320582 average Gregorian years time since 2nd millennium, 20th century, 200th decade, 2000th year = 45 days = .12320582 average Gregorian years
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:03:54 +1100 From: Alex LIVINGSTON <alex@agsm.edu.au>
# We use POSIX-style signedness in the names and output, # internal-style signedness in the specifications.
What is "internal-style signedness"? Would your "average" tz user know? How?
It's zic style. I'll change "internal" to "zic-input".
# ... With the Draft 5 notation, people who # prefer the traditional time zone sign can use TZ='<GMT-4>+4'.
What is "the traditional time zone sign"?
The sign where positive numbers are east of Greenwich. I'll change the wording here too.
What about UTC as opposed to GMT?
The existing zone names all use "GMT" so I think it's better to use GMT in the examples.
Might you also say "people who prefer ISO-8601 compliant time-zone signs can use TZ='<UTC-04:00>+4' instead"?
That doesn't conform to either ISO 8601 or to d5. ISO 8601 does not allow the 'UTC'; d5 does not allow the ':'. However, TZ='<-0400>+4' would conform to both, I think; I'll add that example too. Thanks for your comments.
participants (3)
-
Alex LIVINGSTON -
Paul Eggert -
Semen A. Ustimenko