My objections to locutions like Thu Dec 31 23.59.60 1998
are two. First, they cannot be calculated with. They are either diagnosed as in error or yield incorrect arithmetic results. Second, they work only for positive leap-second corrections. The data came close to a yielding a negative correction, the subtraction of a leap second from the current total, several years ago; one is now very likely, all but certain, very soon; and the analogue of this offensive notation for it is duplicative. The whole notion that we need a calendrical name for a correction, that the correction is itself or needs to be a valid UTC value is without merit. The use of the adjective 'leap' was, I suppose, inevitable; but leap seconds are not in fact at all like leap-year days or gravid, Hebrew-calendar months: we don't need calendrical names for them. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
