On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> [ 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.
Agreed, I don't think it's worth changing. However, that also goes to
the translation of it - let's keep *one* term, that'll make it a lot
less confusing.
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
