Re: Time Zones (RFC)

1998-11-29 21:39:48
On November 29, 1998 at 14:39, Jeff Breidenbach wrote:

I personally think philosphy 2a is quite adequate. I suspect nobody
would ever take advantage of philosphy 2b, (which appears to be what
you are suggesting) but have no fundamental opposition.

I have no intention to go overblown about it.  The timezone issue
comes up periodically, so I figure it is worth mentioning to squelch
the question coming up again.  Plus, making corrections in TIMEZONES
after an unknown is processed is too late (unless the archive messaged
is removed and readded).  So it is beneficial to give users a heads-up
about it inorder to avoid making corrections later.

Adding support for minutes in offset definitions just makes things
more complete.  I think our users down under will like it since all
there timezones have half-hour components.  The changes were not
difficult since code already existed to deal with HHMM offsets when
parsing dates in messages.

The only items that will not be supported are 3) and d) in your list
since I do not think there is any real "standard" on timezone acronyms
and dealing with d) seems not applicable (and a real pain).


Earl Hood

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>