On 20 Sep 2011, at 16:49, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > > I'd also note that plenty of code/standards assumes that the offset is > limited in range, such as -14:00 to +14:00. There is a cost to change > right there.
Yes, indeed, if we allowed leap seconds to build up at the current rate, there would be an issue with an additional hour being required in the range of timezones in approximately five and a half thousand years' time (one leap second per eighteen months, times 3600 seconds per hour). Five and a half thousand years ago is somewhere around the boundary between the neolithic and the bronze age, and the rate of technological change is accelerating, not slowing. I can think of few things I care about less than people in five thousand years' time having to revise the Olson tz code. > Personally, I think it would be very unwise to give up > control to politician of the core clock that is used by the world's > population (yes, "UTC" would still be driven by science, but it would > be irrelevant to real people, in the same way that TAI is today). > Saying that people just care about the time on the news or their wall > isn't enough - they do care about offsets too, and decoupling those > from anything meaningful is just asking for trouble. Could you outline the sort of trouble you have in mind? ian _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
