Dear Tobi @d70-t

Thanks for preparing the pull request.

I notice that you prefer the word "count", in "A time coordinate value is a 
number which represents a date-time as a count", "the counting unit" (meaning 
the unit of time in the `units` string), and "exactly 60 seconds to count" in 
each minute. I didn't use the word "count" because to me "count" specifically 
refers to integers (e.g. as in countable infinity versus uncountable infinity), 
so I find it misleading for floating-point numbers. I described a coordinate 
value as a "number" rather than a "count" because I understand "number" as 
possibly non-integral. However, quite possibly you find "number" misleading! I 
hope we can find some word that everyone likes for a number is not necessarily 
an integer. That's also why I wouldn't call it a "counting unit" - the 
coordinate value might be e.g. 3.142 days, but I don't think I'd say "We count 
3.142 days".

My idea in drafting that text was that we can avoid the problem which 
@chris-little raises at this stage by being clear that the `calendar` is just 
concerned with the rules for calculating time coordinates from date-times and 
vice-versa. If we introduce UTC or other calendars with leap seconds we will 
have to introduce another distinction, but I hope we can agree this PR first. 
It sounds like you and others would also rather do that. In fact that was your 
original aim with this issue, I think.

Regarding your other questions

  * You should add yourself to the end of the list of additional authors.

  * The conformance document is in the same repository, and necessary changes 
should be included in the pull request, consistent with this change. Although 
this is not actually a change, we could add the requirement that the reference 
date-time in time `units` is not allowed to contain seconds equal to or greater 
than 60.

  * The next version will be 1.9. I expect it's already been changed by some 
other pull request.

Best wishes

Jonathan


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://urldefense.us/v3/__https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/313*issuecomment-796834401__;Iw!!G2kpM7uM-TzIFchu!jsxGGPf74Se-RR7XbTDhhbPmhRWQB3TnqxygbVtD2TiTpnRRBNXTVCKFrbqAyT0JIIWVIrYGEEg$
 
This list forwards relevant notifications from Github.  It is distinct from 
[email protected], although if you do nothing, a subscription to the 
UCAR list will result in a subscription to this list.
To unsubscribe from this list only, send a message to 
[email protected].

Reply via email to