mail-ng
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: OT: Re: Less is more

2004-05-05 06:53:48

Paul Smith <paullocal(_at_)pscs(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> writes:

At 18:14 04/05/2004, Brett Watson wrote:
Why not? Sounds eminently sensible to me. Realistically, would anyone care
about leap seconds when sending email?

If you're going to insist on "no leap second dates", you may as well do a
conversion from UTC to UT1 at the outset (converting any instance of 60
seconds back down to 59), since this gives you 0.9 second accuracy anyhow.
Why the on-going enthusiasm for half-baked UTC implementations, folks? Do it
right or do something else, I say.

True - OK, UT1 it is then..

No, don't use UT1 for anything.  This information won't be available
to most implementations.  Either use TAI, which has no leap seconds,
or use UTC, which has the advantage of being easy to implement on Unix
and other operating systems.  UT1 is only of specialist interest; the
most interesting thing about it is that it's used to define UTC.
-- 
  __  Paul Crowley
\/ o\ sig(_at_)paul(_dot_)ciphergoth(_dot_)org
/\__/ http://www.ciphergoth.org/


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>