Bruce Lilly scripsit:
If by international agreement, 'yz' becomes the designation
for that country, then it is rather silly to stick one's
fingers in one's ears and shout "NA-NA-NA-NA-NA I don't want
to hear you".
Actually, 'yz' doesn't designate the country in the ISO standard,
as I explained yesterday. Rather, it designates the *name* of the
country, which is of course subject to change *without* international
agreement. In RFC 1766/3066, we attempt to use it to designate
the country, which requires some straining of the concept.
As I have pointed out, politicians change the definitions of time
zones frequently, and those who have to deal with time zone issues
have found a way to cope with such change without trying to declare
international standardization organizations irrelevant.
Ah, but you kick the ball through your own goalposts here. The
Olsen time zone system is excellent -- but it becomes so only by totally
ignoring the customary names of time zones and inventing its own!
(Thus U.S. Eastern time is named "America/New_York", e.g.) The
customary names are carried only as time zone abbreviations such as
"EST", which are not unique, are English-only, and most of which are
also made up. (Countries with a single time zone generally don't
bother with an official name for it, with some obvious exceptions.)
It's rather silly to change that correspondence simply because
a few people are piqued that international agreement has been
reached to change a few 2-letter codes.
Not much of an international agreement, really.
--
Samuel Johnson on playing the violin: John Cowan
"Difficult do you call it, Sir?
jcowan(_at_)reutershealth(_dot_)com
I wish it were impossible." http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf