Re: Date-time yet again

[Bruce Lilly <[e-mail]>]

On Thu June 9 2005 14:37, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> 
> In <[e-mail]> Bruce Lilly <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> >On Wed June 8 2005 10:42, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> 
> >> In <[e-mail]> Bruce Lilly <[e-mail]> writes:
> >> 
> >> >Precisely how would "PDT" "break the protocols" in a way that "UT"
> >> >would not?
> >> 
> >> I am not aware what other zones use "PDT", but [...]
> 
> >Charles, stop trying to evade the issue.
> 
> Whether or not "PDT" has clones is beside the point

Then its rather telling that you keep changing the subject to that when
you are asked to substantiate your claims, viz.:

  You MUST NOT generate "EST" or any of the other things in <obs-zone>
  because it would actually break the protocols
and that it would
  REQUIRE all News software to be upgraded to accept constructes that
  had Never Ever been seen in Netnews

The simple fact is that the specific alphabetic zones listed in RFC
2822 parse grammar also appeared in RFC 822 (cited as the definitive
reference for date-time by RFCs 850 and 1036) and are in fact handled
by news software past (including B news) and present.  There is nothing
that "would actually break the protocols" as you claimed; obviously,
since those abbreviations have been in use for decades without
breakage (illegal cruft not in 822 is another matter).

For the purpose of specifying the date-time field component semantics
and syntax, I see absolutely no reason to deviate from RFC 2822 and
several very good reasons to defer the matter to 2822.

For protocol purposes, we can address handling of obs-zone by injection
and transport agents in the protocol document, which is a separate matter.