Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!sequoia!memqa!enag From: enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400 Subject: Re: Time zones again. Message-ID: Date: 30 Aug 90 19:53:23 GMT References: <9008300931.AA19045@jerry.inria.fr> Sender: enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum) Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 28 Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU x-attn: jns X-Previously-To: comp-protocols-iso-x400%uunet@ifi.uio.no ReSent-To: mhsnews@ICS.UCI.EDU In-Reply-To: Christian.Huitema@mirsa.inria.fr's message of 30 Aug 90 09:33:36 GMT In article <9008300931.AA19045@jerry.inria.fr> Christian.Huitema@mirsa.inria.fr writes: In the absence of a disambiguation algorithm, I intend to apply a "vote by head": Eastern and Central North-America is somewhat more populated than Australia, and the British Isles somewhat more than the Straight of Bering. What I will not try to implement is a recognition of the "domain" mentionned in the "received" field, in order to choose the time zone naming context... I'm somewhat confused. Does this age-old problem apply to the X.400 camp, too? I thought they had done this right, at least. The Internet Host Requirements RFC recommended using numeric only time zones, which, albeit a bit different to read as-is by humans in any given local area, can easily be translated by the user agent into something useful, such as what this corresponds to in local time, or where it was posted from, and what the time is there now. (The age of a message can be important and useful to know when deciding which messages to reply to among many, as is the time at which your reply is going to reach them.) Sorry if I've completely lost track of this discussion, and ask stupid questions. -- [Erik Naggum] Naggum Software; Gaustadalleen 21; N-0371 OSLO; NORWAY I disclaim, , therefore I post. +47-295-8622, +47-256-7822, (fax) +47-260-4427