On Sun, 2016-10-09 at 15:12 -0400, Brooks Harris wrote: > > I took the lack of mention of leap seconds to mean that leap > > seconds > > ere not a problem. The output of the NISTDC units is an > > astonishingly > > accurate 1 pulse per second. That feeds NTP, which handles leap > > seconds using a table. As long as the table is kept up to date, > > everyone agrees on each second's name. > Except the one to be called YYYY-MM-DDT23:59:60. > > There are 86401 pegs in the (positive) Leap Second UTC day. There are > 86400 holes in traditional timescales in which to put them. Something > has to to go missing - the mapping is indeterminate. Common practice > of introducing Leap Seconds on local timescales simultaneous with its > introduction at UTC places these indeterminate labels at different > time-of-day points along each local timescale. Non standardized and > politically driven Daylight Savings rules further complicates when > these indeterminate moments occur. Meantime there is no standardized > way to keep the Leap Second tables automatically updated to begin > with. > > -Brooks
Not being a traditionalist myself, I don't feel that there is anything wrong with 23:59:60 as a label for a particular second. Thus, I don't feel the need to map the 86,401 seconds of the last day of 2016 into 86,400 "holes", and therefore I do not suffer any indeterminacy. John Sauter (john_sau...@systemeyescomputerstore.com) -- PGP fingerprint E24A D25B E5FE 4914 A603 49EC 7030 3EA1 9A0B 511E
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs