[LEAPSECS] Standards of time zones -Brooks Harris

[Brooks Harris]

Hi Magnus,

On 2014-01-09 02:11 PM, Magnus Danielson wrote:

> Hi Brooks,

>

> Welcome to the list!

>

> On 08/01/14 01:45, Brooks Harris wrote:

>>

>> On 2014-01-07 03:40 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

>>> In message <52CC8C26.5090608 at edlmax.com>, Brooks Harris writes:

>>>

>>>> I fully understand time zone specifications are fractured. My 

>>>> objective

>>>> is to determine what standards are most relevant currently, that is,

>>>> what standards may be considered "in force". And where none exist, to

>>>> state some sort of rules of "common use" or "common practice" without

>>>> referring to the impossibly large collection of local jurisdictions 

>>>> and

>>>> laws.

>>> There is no way to do that, because timezones are purely a matter

>>> under the jurisdiction of national or in some cases even provincial

>>> governments, and they are free to do any damn thing they want to them.

>> Yes. What I'm trying to get at is - "Offset from UTC" seems pretty clear

>> - a given "+-xx:xx" gives you a hard-value to work with in the time

>> domain. But this doesn't seem to be clearly defined anywhere. I'm

>> looking for more than "because everybody does it that way".

>>

>> Meantime, local jurisdictions choose to honor some locally defined "time

>> zone" including politically defined geographic areas. Time and position

>> are related but they are not the same. Typically, most elect to follow

>> "common use" precedent and choose a reasonable even-hour "offset from

>> UTC". (Yes, I know its sometimes referenced to GMT and other details

>> like that, and yes, Newfoundland and others are not on the hour.)

>>

>>> Various governments have repeatedly made sure this fact is not

>>> overlooked.

>>

>> I'm not sure I blame the governments quite so directly. As far as I can

>> tell both experts and officials are guessing what the "standards" of

>> "timezone" might be, so how can they be expected to conform to a

>> non-existent ideal? If someone is in charge of deciding the rules and

>> parameters of some time zone somewhere, what guidence do they have? And

>> the more you research it, the more confusing it becomes.

>

> I think they mostly adapt to what is handy for trade. Keeping the same 

> clock as important neighbors to which they have lots of trade and 

> communication, that is in practice more important that aligning to the 

> 15 degrees separations, even if that is a starting-point. The same 

> goes for the daylight-saving time. In Europe, the European Union 

> coordinated the daylight-saving time transitions to be at the same 

> time amongs members, as this avoids switching at different dates. This 

> however is not coordinated with the US, so I can have 8, 9 and 10 

> hours between me and California for example. It's also interesting to 

> note that this common document from 2001 have different types of 

> formulations depending on language, so GMT, meridian and UTC is used 

> alternatively depening on language, and if you want to be picky, you 

> don't know relative time between countries better than +/- 0.9 s.

>

> So, it's a mess. It's not a technical problem, it just becomes one.

>

>>>> A) "International Date Line", which is probably not standardized

>>> [...]

>>>

>>> It is not.

>>>

>>> In only exists as a the result of local governments deciding what

>>> timezones to use.

>>>

>>> Some Pacific Island nation "jumped" timezones for Y2K in order

>>> to be the first country to "arrive in the new millenia.

>>>

>>> The "intenational date line" is simply where you, in broad daylight,

>>> have a country with one date on one side and another country with

>>> a different date on the other side.

>>

>> Yes. But its "roughly" 180 degrees from the "Greenwich meridian", as per

>> "International Meridian Conference of 1884" "Final Act III. "That from

>> this meridian longitude shall be counted in two directions up to 180

>> degrees, east longitude being plus and west longitude minus."

>>

>> Its common practice that the jump to the designation of the next day

>> occurs at this "international date line", wherever the local authorities

>> may have chosen to place themselves, for examples UTC-offset +14:00,

>> +13:00, and +12:00. This topic, of jumping to the next day, is discussed

>> in many letters and common explanations, but I find no official

>> statement to that effect, even as a guideline.

>>

>>>> B) The "International Meridian Conference of 1884" contains 

>>>> significant

>>>> discussion of the idea "That these standard meridians should 

>>>> continue to

>>>> be designated as even multiples of fifteen degrees from Greenwich", 

>>>> but

>>>> there appears to be no explicit resolution of vote on the topic.

>>> And there were none subsequently.  Strict 15 degree meridians would

>>> be very impractical, unless national borders were aligned with them.

>>

>> Well, thats what even-hour UTC-offsets are, aren't they? And in

>> jurisdictions with even-hour UTC offsets, that's where they've placed

>> themselves in the timescale, right?

>>

>>>

>>> Despite significant attempts at map-redrawing in the first half of

>>> the 19-hundredes, timezones were never a reason for it.

>>>

>>> UTC was standardized so that telephone, telegraph and radio operators

>>> would not have to keep track of local politics all over the world in

>>> order to operate.

>>

>> Right. And it almost works. It seems to me it could work better if the

>> loose ends of the underlying standards were better taken care of, hence

>> my interest in learning the current state of the definition of each of

>> these components.

>>

>>>

>>> In practice, the "olsen" database is a post-facto recording of

>>> political whims with respect to timezones.

>>>

>>>

>> Again, "political whims" is really all they've got to go on. Maybe we

>> can do better?

>

> Not without a lot of political whims. Simply put, just forget it, 

> won't happen.

> It might improve, but the end game is way to far away.


Well, its clear the "end game" would take a long time to realize. It 
will take serious patience on the part of folks who care.

My point is that the standards, where they exist, are dispersed and 
fractured. This contributes to the confusion and proliferation of 
non-interoperable systems. It must also contribute to "the political 
whims" of any jurisdiction because of the lack of clarity. Any 
government anywhere is faced with conflicting demands and internal 
debate. Where any law concerning time-keeping is concerned it is very 
difficult to understand the concepts and standards - its takes experts. 
Its no wonder that the laws seem arbitrary because government 
politicians are not likely to be time experts, the debate gets confused, 
and they have more urgent topics on their agenda. They do the best they 
can and move on.

So, an effort to simply consolidate the terms, definitions, and 
standards into a single reference document would go a long way toward 
lending clarity to system implementers, other industries, and, 
importantly, to governments seeking to refine their laws to coordinate 
time and commerce with other jurisdictions.

To be taken seriously enough to have an effect the document would need 
to be developed by a credible, preferably international, due-process 
standards body. Since this list is frequented by time experts from many 
industries it seemed like a good place to float the idea. It might even 
be a forum where an unofficial, experimental, document writing exercise 
might take place.

So far, everyone has indicated its impossible, but I've been doing this 
too long to give up the idea that easily.

Does anyone think the idea has any merit?

-Brooks


>

> Cheers,

> Magnus

> _______________________________________________

> LEAPSECS mailing list

> LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

>

>