On Thu, 29 May 2025 at 11:51, Doug Ewell via tz <[email protected]> wrote:
> That isn’t what tz identifiers are for. They represent regions that have
> followed the same time zone rules (UTC offset, daylight-saving offset and
> dates) since 1970. They are not intended to identify locations with
> “distinct historical, geographic, and cultural identity.”
Doug articulates this correctly. Quoting Point 1 in the "Rationale"
section of Denis' linked proposal document:
1. Historical Time Zone Distinction:
>
> - Prior to 1982, Malaysia operated with two separate time zones:
> - West Malaysia (Peninsular): UTC+07:30
> - East Malaysia (Sabah & Sarawak): UTC+08:00
> - In 1982, the Malaysian government unified the time zones under
> UTC+08:00 nationwide. While this change brought West Malaysia ahead of its
> solar time, it was naturally aligned with Sabah's geographic solar noon.
>
> Sabah & Sarawak have matched Brunei in staying on UTC+08:00 since before
1970, and so are already covered by Asia/Kuching. Peninsular Malaysia
shifted from UTC+07:30 to +08:00 at the same time as Singapore at the start
of 1982, and so is already covered by Asia/Singapore. Because both of
these cases are already handled by our existing data, Point 1 forms a
strong case for NOT creating a new zone.
Denis' Points 2 ("Geographical and Civil Uniqueness") and 3 ("Cultural
Recognition and Technical Use") don't really factor into consideration for
whether a separate zone is needed. Please review:
https://data.iana.org/time-zones/data/theory.html
> If you have or can provide evidence that Penampang or Kota Kinabalu has
> observed timekeeping rules in the period since 1970 that are not duplicated
> by other zones, please share that information.
>
This is the caveat as always. If any region's wall-clock times from 1970
onward cannot be faithfully represented by existing zones, do let us know
and be sure to provide links to reliable sources supporting such claims for
our review.
--
Tim Parenti
