On Fri 2006/01/13 14:20:21 -, Michael Deckers wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
Then why can the IERS express UTC in the MJD notation?
Good point. The only such usage I am aware of is in IERS Bulletin A
where the MJD column is given without saying even whether it's UTC,
On Fri 2006/01/13 11:45:13 -, Ed Davies wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
If you don't count the leap seconds then the good news is that
days are all 86 400 seconds long but the bad news is that the
real is undefined during the leap second and there's a
discontinuity (or
On Fri 2006/01/13 16:45:33 -, Michael Deckers wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
Right, UTC timestamps are ambiguous (in the sense that the
... would have been ambiguous ...
corresponding TAI value is not known) in the vicinity of
positive leap seconds, and the
On Fri 2006/01/13 18:39:01 CDT, John Cowan wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
The situation with the proposed leap hour is quite different. Given
that AEST is defined as UTC+1000, and AEDT as UTC+1100, would someone
care to speculate, in terms similar to the above, what will
Mark Calabretta scripsit:
If you go through the exercise trying to tie leap hours to DST, as I
challenged, you will discover that it raises many questions that are not
addressed by the leap hour proposal.
I realize the ALHP has severe problems with this, but I don't approve
of the ALHP anyhow
