In message <56F8780469824813BF7CAC4E610AB561@pc52>, "Tom Van Baak" writes:
>In a way part of the charm is that they didn't specify w. You could >implement a leap smear on any system you choose, picking the w >that best meets your needs. That solves the major problem with >Markus' proposal where he uses bogus rationales to overly specify >everything (e.g., the frequency shift must only begin at 23:43:21). Well, Googles hack is a workaround for internal use with no regard to subsecond interoperability with anybody else. Markus proposal is for an international standard, allowing subsecond interoperatbility at subsecond levels. I can fully understand Googles workaround as a way of coping with leap seconds. I think Markus proposal to make them even more bizarre is a really bad idea. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
