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, instead? Sam.
