Re: [Nmh-workers] date math

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

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