[ back to this... ]
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 21:06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I suppose we had a reason for doing it the first way but I can't see
>> what. �"GMT" seems a fairly English-centric way of referring to UTC
>> anyhow; translators might wish to put in "UTC" instead, or some other
>> spelling. �Shouldn't we let them?
> UTC and GMT aren't actually the same thing.
Tell it to the zic people --- they are identical except for the zone
abbreviation itself, according to the zic database. There might be some
pedantic argument for preferring the name "UTC", but I'm hesitant to
change that behavior just to satisfy pedants.
> And either way, it's an abbreviation, and we don't normally translate
> those, do we?
I think that might in fact have been the argument for the current coding
style; but it still seems like it's overcomplicating matters in order to
prevent translators from making a decision they should be perfectly
competent to make for themselves. Anyway, it's not real important.
Since nobody else seems to be excited about changing that part,
I'll leave it alone.
regards, tom lane
