Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon(_at_)orthanc(_dot_)ca> writes:
On Dec 15, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Ken Hornstein <kenh(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com> wrote:
So that makes me wonder if
we should still try to bother to generate a symbolic timezone name. It
looks like the only portable way to do this is to have an internal list
of timezone names. A large part of me says to not bother.
The IETF has been discouraging symbolic timezone names for many years.
I would say ditch them. For those who want a symbolic timezone
(usually recipients) it's so they can easily mentally convert to their
local time. Those folks are better served by a +nnnn offset that their
local MUA can unambiguously convert to local time for display. And for
those of us who do care about the senders local time, the +nnnn format
makes it a lot easier for me to do the mental conversion vs.
deciphering some unknown-to-me local-to-them timezone abbreviation.
Agree with Lyndon here.
--
Bill Wohler <wohler(_at_)newt(_dot_)com> aka
<Bill(_dot_)Wohler(_at_)nasa(_dot_)gov>
http://www.newt.com/wohler/
GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers