[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] date math
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] date math |
Date: |
Mon, 15 Dec 2014 20:23:37 -0500 |
>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.
Note that I was only suggesting that the timezone be displayed at the
local side, and although I didn't mention it I was only going to suggest
it support IETF-sanctioned timezones. But it seems like there's little
political will for that. That makes %(tws) and %(pretty) equivalent,
FWIW.
--Ken
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math, Ken Hornstein, 2014/12/15
- 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, 2014/12/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] date math,
Ken Hornstein <=
- 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