Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 20:09:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Adam David <adam@veda.is> To: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Can anyone explain...? Message-ID: <199611232009.UAA18813@veda.is> In-Reply-To: <9611231832.AA04161@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> from Garrett Wollman at "Nov 23, 96 01:32:44 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > It would be worth keeping MET for backward compatibility? > > CET does make better sense though as the standard name. > > That doesn't make any sense. A timezone only has a single set of > abbreviations. Unless you wanted to create an alternative set of > timezone data files, the only difference in which was that some > European countries have a different abbreviation? Gack. OK sorry for the detour, I had wrongly assumed that several names could point to the same zone sector. CET is still the obvious choice, but then how shall any sense be made of "MET"? -- Adam David <adam@veda.is>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611232009.UAA18813>