Re: [Nmh-workers] date math

[Bill Wohler]

Lyndon Nerenberg <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.

Agree with Lyndon here.

-- 
Bill Wohler <address@hidden> aka <address@hidden>
http://www.newt.com/wohler/
GnuPG ID:610BD9AD