The Pakistan rules for 2002 have the transition at 0:01 instead of 0:00. This disagrees with the commentary: # From Rives McDow (2002-03-13): # I have been advised that Pakistan has decided to adopt dst on a # TRIAL basis for one year, starting 00:01 local time on April 7, 2002 # and ending at 00:01 local time October 6, 2002. This is what I was # told, but I believe that the actual time of change may be 00:00; the # 00:01 was to make it clear which day it was on. The remaining rules in the file are at 0:00. Also, our friends at timeanddate.com have it at midnight as well. http://www.timeanddate.com/time/change/pakistan/karachi?year=2002 Of course, the problem with any fall-back transition after 0:00 and before 1:00 is that it implies the calendar date goes forward, then back, then forward again. In this case going from Oct 6, back to Oct 5, then forward to Oct 6 again. While there are indeed areas where this certainly occurred, we should be careful not to introduce that artificially. If there is uncertainty between 0:00 and 0:01, we should assume 0:00 (IMHO). Thanks, Matt
On 1 Jan 2016 16:07, Matt Johnson wrote:
While there are indeed areas where this certainly occurred, we should be careful not to introduce that artificially. If there is uncertainty between 0:00 and 0:01, we should assume 0:00 (IMHO). Agreed. I took a look through and there thankfully weren't too many cases like this. In the attached patch 0001, I left the few cases where 00:01 is almost definitely correct, like the StJohns and Moncton rules; but removed the others. Feel free to apply it, or not, if people have strong feelings either way.
The attached patch 0002 just rearranges NEWS items a bit, to be more consistent with future / past-and-future / past. -- Tim Parenti
Tim Parenti wrote:
Agreed. I took a look through and there thankfully weren't too many cases like this. In the attached patch 0001, I left the few cases where 00:01 is almost definitely correct, like the StJohns and Moncton rules; but removed the others. Feel free to apply it, or not, if people have strong feelings either way.
Let's leave those alone unless we get better data. The ":01"s are from Shanks, which although unreliable is better than nothing. Plausibly legislation specified 00:01 to avoid confusion about midnight transitions.
The attached patch 0002 just rearranges NEWS items a bit, to be more consistent with future / past-and-future / past.
Thanks, I installed that into the experimental version.
participants (3)
-
Matt Johnson -
Paul Eggert -
Tim Parenti