Re: [tz] Chilean time change
As far as I know, an official announcement of the adoption of a new time change rule would have to appear in: http://www.diariooficial.interior.gob.cl and would also appear in: http://www.horaoficial.cl/cambio_hora.html I have been monitoring both on a daily basis, and thus far have seen nothing. So for now it's unclear to me whether this is a proposal or an announcement. -G. On Feb 24, 2015, at 9:00 AM, tz-request@iana.org wrote:
http://www.minenergia.cl/ministerio/noticias/generales/gobierno-anuncia-modi... I[s] this the announcement of the proposal or the announcement of the adoption of the proposal?
-- Glenn Eychaner (geychaner@lco.cl) Telescope Systems Programmer, Las Campanas Observatory
I do not understand the purpose of the line for June 1942 in the Chile rules: # Rule NAME FROM TO TYPE IN ON AT SAVE LETTER/S Rule Chile 1927 1932 - Sep 1 0:00 1:00 S Rule Chile 1928 1932 - Apr 1 0:00 0 - --> Rule Chile 1942 only - Jun 1 4:00u 0 - Rule Chile 1942 only - Aug 1 5:00u 1:00 S Chile was on GMTOFF -5h from 1927 to 1947. What purpose has that line which does not change anything, as no DST was in force before that date: Rule Chile 1942 only - Jun 1 4:00u 0
PS: on second thought, could it be that the lines for 1942 are generally in error: Rule Chile 1942 only - Jun 1 4:00u 0 - Rule Chile 1942 only - Aug 1 5:00u 1:00 S Rule Chile 1946 only - Jul 15 4:00u 1:00 S Rule Chile 1946 only - Sep 1 3:00u 0:00 - They make no sense, because according to this, - Jun 1942 line is superfluous - Aug 1942 sets DST in force until next cancellation of DST in Sep 1946, - JUL 1946 line would be superfluous, as well. Should it not rather be: Rule Chile 1942 only - Jun 1 4:00u 1:00 S Rule Chile 1942 only - Aug 1 5:00u 0 - Rule Chile 1946 only - Jul 15 4:00u 1:00 S Rule Chile 1946 only - Sep 1 3:00u 0:00 - But when I look at the reference, http://www.horaoficial.cl/historia_hora.html it does not contain anything about DST in 1942.
Alois Treindl wrote:
PS: on second thought, could it be that the lines for 1942 are generally in error:
Rule Chile 1942 only - Jun 1 4:00u 0 - Rule Chile 1942 only - Aug 1 5:00u 1:00 S Rule Chile 1946 only - Jul 15 4:00u 1:00 S Rule Chile 1946 only - Sep 1 3:00u 0:00 -
They make no sense, because according to this, - Jun 1942 line is superfluous
No, because according to the database Chile was on daylight-saving time (UTC-4) from 1932-09-01 05:00 UTC until 1942-06-01 04:00 UTC, so that line is needed for Chile to exit DST.
- Aug 1942 sets DST in force until next cancellation of DST in Sep 1946, - JUL 1946 line would be superfluous, as well.
Yes, that's right. The line mentioning "Jul 15" can be removed without changing the meaning of the data. I don't know why that line is there, but I suppose we can remove it.
when I look at the reference, http://www.horaoficial.cl/historia_hora.html it does not contain anything about DST in 1942.
This entry was contributed by Jesper Nørgaard Welen in 2006; please see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2006-October/013906.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2006-October/013908.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2006-October/013909.html http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2006-October/013936.html I'll CC: this message to him to see if he can provide insight, though we haven't heard from Jesper for a while so we may not get a response here. I did not check horaoficial.cl myself. Possibly it has changed since 2006, possibly there were transcription errors. Either way, we should fix it.
On 2015-03-29 18:46, Paul Eggert wrote about the Chile rules:
Yes, that's right. The line mentioning "Jul 15" can be removed without changing the meaning of the data. I don't know why that line is there, but I suppose we can remove it.
The same seems to hold true for the line Rule Chile 1947 only - Apr 1 4:00u 0 - because its precursor Rule Chile 1946 only - Sep 1 3:00u 0:00 - does the same, and (current) usage of the Chile rules never starts after 1946-09-01T03Z and on or before 1947-04-01T04Z. Michael Deckers.
michael.deckers wrote:
On 2015-03-29 18:46, Paul Eggert wrote about the Chile rules:
Yes, that's right. The line mentioning "Jul 15" can be removed without changing the meaning of the data. I don't know why that line is there, but I suppose we can remove it.
The same seems to hold true for the line Rule Chile 1947 only - Apr 1 4:00u 0 - because its precursor Rule Chile 1946 only - Sep 1 3:00u 0:00 - does the same, and (current) usage of the Chile rules never starts after 1946-09-01T03Z and on or before 1947-04-01T04Z.
Yes, that also seems correct; removing the 1947 line causes no change to the output. Thanks.
On 2015-03-29 18:46, Paul Eggert wrote about the rules for Chile:
Yes, that's right. The line mentioning "Jul 15" can be removed without changing the meaning of the data. I don't know why that line is there, but I suppose we can remove it.
Same for the line Rule Chile 1947 only - Apr 1 4:00u 0 - which does the same as its precursor Rule Chile 1946 only - Sep 1 3:00u 0:00 - and which is superfluous as there is (currently) no usage of the Chile rules starting after 1946-09-01T03 and before or on 1947-04-01T04. Michael Deckers.
On 2015-03-29 18:46, Paul Eggert wrote about the rules for Chile:
Yes, that's right. The line mentioning "Jul 15" can be removed without changing the meaning of the data. I don't know why that line is there, but I suppose we can remove it.
Same for the line Rule Chile 1947 only - Apr 1 4:00u 0 - which does the same as its precursor Rule Chile 1946 only - Sep 1 3:00u 0:00 - and which is superfluous as there is (currently) no usage of the Chile rules starting after 1946-09-01T03 and before or on 1947-04-01T04. Michael Deckers.
participants (6)
-
Alois Treindl -
Glenn Eychaner -
Michael Deckers -
Michael Deckers -
michael.deckers
-
Paul Eggert