On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 16:33 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : I would assume that you would choose time 0.0 = Jan 1, 2000 at 00:00:00.0
> : TAI (December 31, 1999 at 23:59:29.0 UTC), making the whole thing free of
> : any UTC interferences. But there is an argument for making the zero point a
> : recognizable boundary in civil time.
> That's my leaning--if I thought it might encourage the abandonment of
> civil leap seconds, I'd be glad to nail it to Jan 1, 2000, 00:00:00.0 UTC.
If we're going with TAI, can't we just nail it to the epoch it defines,