Grouped country lists are confusing
Recent changes merged the comments acting as country headers. Thus, a typical merged header is now: # Denmark # Germany # Norway # Sweden It is very confusing to suggest that all four countries are evenly represented here, as the commentary is typically all about the primary country (Germany in this case). The alphabetical list is decidedly unhelpful too, as nothing indicates which country the Zone's city relates to. Can I propose these comments be altered to something like: # Germany # also applicable since 1970 to Denmark # also applicable since 1970 to Norway # also applicable since 1970 to Sweden thanks Stephen
On 2022-10-29 10:20, Stephen Colebourne via tz wrote:
Can I propose these comments be altered to something like:
# Germany # also applicable since 1970 to Denmark # also applicable since 1970 to Norway # also applicable since 1970 to Sweden
That wording would suggest that Germany is "more important" than the other countries. I expect we'll be better off deemphasizing the role of politics in the data commentary as much as we easily can, and this is why the names are currently listed in simple alphabetical order. Although we'll get political flames no matter what, we'd likely get more flames if we habitually listed what appears to be the biggest and most powerful country first, followed by a list of its neighbors as seeming appendages.
Paul Eggert via tz <tz@iana.org> writes:
On 2022-10-29 10:20, Stephen Colebourne via tz wrote:
Can I propose these comments be altered to something like:
# Germany # also applicable since 1970 to Denmark # also applicable since 1970 to Norway # also applicable since 1970 to Sweden
That wording would suggest that Germany is "more important" than the other countries.
But ... but ... but ... you already made that value judgment in your choice of the zone data. regards, tom lane
On 2022-10-29 21:58, Tom Lane wrote:
But ... but ... but ... you already made that value judgment in your choice of the zone data.
I wouldn't call it a value judgment, unless by "value judgment" one means "we partition the world back to 1970 and then we stop." But regardless of what kind of judgment one calls it, there's no advantage, and some real disadvantage, to making a big deal about this in the comments, where non-experts plausibly would misinterpret what's going on and take offense where none is intended.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:03:12PM -0700, Paul Eggert via tz wrote:
On 2022-10-29 21:58, Tom Lane wrote:
But ... but ... but ... you already made that value judgment in your choice of the zone data.
I wouldn't call it a value judgment, unless by "value judgment" one means "we partition the world back to 1970 and then we stop."
If that is the case then I would like to know why there is any pre-1970 data in the files? Is that not a value judgement that makes some countries seem more equal than others? /MF
On 2022-10-30 21:49, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
I would like to know why there is any pre-1970 data in the files?
Because commonly-used APIs require data before 1970, and something needs to exist there. There's more on this topic at <https://data.iana.org/time-zones/theory.html#scope>.
Is that not a value judgement that makes some countries seem more equal than others?
Only if one goes out of one's way to interpret things that way. It's certainly not the reason pre-1970 data entries are present.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2022 at 04:41, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
On 2022-10-29 10:20, Stephen Colebourne via tz wrote:
Can I propose these comments be altered to something like:
# Germany # also applicable since 1970 to Denmark # also applicable since 1970 to Norway # also applicable since 1970 to Sweden
That wording would suggest that Germany is "more important" than the other countries. I expect we'll be better off deemphasizing the role of politics in the data commentary as much as we easily can, and this is why the names are currently listed in simple alphabetical order.
Although we'll get political flames no matter what, we'd likely get more flames if we habitually listed what appears to be the biggest and most powerful country first, followed by a list of its neighbors as seeming appendages.
The definition of Belgium/Luxembourg/Netherlands: Title: 3 lines - Belgium/Luxembourg/Netherlands Commentary about Belgium: 31 lines Rule Belgium: 39 lines Zone Europe/Brussels: 10 lines Apart from the last 2 lines of the Zone, all the remaining lines of the section (97.5%) are exclusively about Belgium. In `backzone` you find Title: Luxembourg Commentary about Luxembourg: 2 lines Rule Lux: 23 lines Zone Europe/Luxembourg: 7 lines Title: Netherlands Commentary about Netherlands: 41 lines Rule Neth: 23 lines Zone Europe/Amsterdam: 6 lines No independent observer will ever describe the data in the main file as equally representing Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg. Anyway, I don't care that much, it is your business if you want to leave the section titles claiming something that clearly isn't supported by the section's data. thanks Stephen https://github.com/JodaOrg/global-tz
participants (4)
-
Magnus Fromreide -
Paul Eggert -
Stephen Colebourne -
Tom Lane