Tom Van Baak <[email protected]> wrote: > Except it doesn't work for binary systems. 32.768 Hz watches > would prefer steps of 1/1024 s. UTS was a fine idea until it > was so overly specified. Since you are already dealing with > timekeepers that do not care so much about sub-second > accuracy a smoothed leap second proposal should allow > flexibility.
I vigorously advocate only the general idea of rubberization. The exact mode of rubberization is up to each individual implementor in practice. Alice and Bob may choose two different rubberization schemes, but the magnitude of the difference between their clock readings can't exceed 1 s at any point. MS _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
