> call the fully metric calendar UTC or gregorian_utc. > ... > Here's my objection to that name. I'm concerned that this will lead people to > think that they can't use that calendar for anything other than 'UTC times'.
uhm, isn't that the case? we certainly SHOULD have a a way to say "this really is correct and proper UTC" and what else would be a valid use case??? And I really don't think a "TAI but with a UTC timestamp" makes any sense at all. Sure, folks that care about TAI tend to be sophisticated users that should have access to leap-second-aware tools, but the whole POINT of TAI is that it doesn't have leap-seconds, and is therefore easier to deal with and use. I guess I fail to see the downside a "proper" TAI calendar -- it's a well defined, relatively easy to use standard. The only downside I see is that a lot of folks don't know what the heck it is. On the other hand, a, lot of those folks THINK they know what UTC is, but are wrong. And if no one uses it, what harm is there??? -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/148#issuecomment-436015173
