[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] date math
From: |
Lyndon Nerenberg |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] date math |
Date: |
Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:41:07 -0800 |
On Dec 15, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> 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.
--lyndon
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, Ken Hornstein, 2014/12/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2014/12/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, Paul Vixie, 2014/12/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, Ken Hornstein, 2014/12/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, Robert Elz, 2014/12/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, Ken Hornstein, 2014/12/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, hymie, 2014/12/17
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, David Levine, 2014/12/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math,
Lyndon Nerenberg <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, Ken Hornstein, 2014/12/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2014/12/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, Bill Wohler, 2014/12/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, David Levine, 2014/12/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, Ralph Corderoy, 2014/12/16