Rob Seaman scripsit: > I presume you aren't asserting that standard time clocks can't be > accurate, but rather distinguishing between standard (timezone) > time and local mean solar time?
No, I am reflecting the fact that some people define "local civil time" in such a way as to exclude daylight-saving shifts. > On the other hand, all I've ever meant by the term "civil time" is > that time that a well educated civilian sets her clock in order to > agree with other civilians for civilian purposes. Good. That is what I mean also. > Interesting question: On similar historical occasions, for instance > during the transition from "old style" to "new style" dates as the > Julian calendar gave way to the Gregorian, has the sequence of days > of the week remained unbroken? Or rather, have days of the week been > skipped as well as days of the month? Surely the Gregorian calendar > is not just a rule for adding a leap day every four years (except > sometimes), but also includes the definitions of the twelve months, > and an initialization of a specific day-of-the-week on whatever date. During the British transition, at least, the days of the week continued their accustomed rotation. I believe this was true of every such transition as well. Even while part of Europe was Gregorian and part Julian, they all agreed on when Sunday was, most fortunately. > >This was not a calendar transition, but a (drastic) time zone > >transition involving moving the International Date Line to the east. > > Not obvious that there is any difference - kind of a calendrical > Mach's Principle. It is precisely the fact that there was no Wednesday in the Philippines in that final week of 1845 that made it a time-zone rather than a calendrical transition. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ccil.org/~cowan If he has seen farther than others, it is because he is standing on a stack of dwarves. --Mike Champion, describing Tim Berners-Lee (adapted)
