OK, that looks like it might have an equivalent effect. On Aug 22, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Chris > >> Perhaps there could be an attribute we could set that says whether we have >> accounted for leap seconds? With the absence of such an attribute to be >> presumed as meaning leap seconds have been ignored. > > Perhaps the real-world calendars with and without leap seconds should be > regarded as two different calendars, since they have different encodings > (meaning decoding/encoding as YMD HMS <-> time-interval since reference-time). > The "true" real-world calendar is the one with leap seconds. > > CF has a calendar > proleptic_gregorian > > A Gregorian calendar extended to dates before 1582-10-15. That is, a year > is a leap year if either (i) it is divisible by 4 but not by 100 or (ii) it > is divisible by 400. > > What if we clarified this calendar as not having leap seconds? Then it could > be used for real-world applications for recent dates meaning that it was just > like the real world except that it doesn't have leap seconds. > > Model calendars, which are already idealised wrt length of year, don't have > leap seconds anyway, I am sure. > > Best wishes > > Jonathan > _______________________________________________ > CF-metadata mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata -- Dr. Christopher Lynnes NASA/GSFC, Code 610.2 phone: 301-614-5185 _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
