On 28 January 2011 05:33, Tom Van Baak <[email protected]> wrote: > There are many forms of "SLS"; from those that spread the > leap across one second, or two seconds, or 30 seconds or > a minute, or an hour, or a day. Spread it across a year (or > however long it's been since the last leap second) and you > have UT1. And that's just the versions of SLS that use linear > ramping. You can imagine nicer ones that take off and end > slowly instead of the abrupt quantum rate change as seen > in the utc-sls write-up. 1200 might make a better choice if > there are 50/60 Hz effects (1000 is not divisible by 60). Or > 300. 1024 or a smaller power of 2 is nicer for low cost, low > power devices. 1200 has more common prime factors than > 1000 which can come in handy in some cases. You get the > idea. Lots of ways to do it.
And thats fine. But since the %age of users that care is infinitessimally small, I need one number and no configuration. The only well-written document (proto-standard) is UTC-SLS which uses 1000. Now if this list or others wants to get together and writeup a replacement for UTC-SLS in the next few months that it prefers with justifications as to why its better and a process for making it a real standard, then so be it. Otherwise, UTC-SLS with 1000 will get used simply because it exists now. And by virtue of being used in Java it would then be a de facto standard. @Gerard, The point about making UTC-SLS more certain than one webpage is well made. Stephen _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
