On 8 July 2014 12:14, John Gilmore <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Surely the issue is not one of naming, but that an event can occur during a leap second, and it must be possible -- and surely not exceptional -- to talk about the time of this event, calculate how long before or after another event it took place, and so on, all in terms of the notation in question. Tony H.
