Can we close this now? not good to have lingering issues
I've started #150 -- where we can hash out the issues not addressed in the
CONTRIBUTING.md doc
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
@ChrisBarker-NOAA I love your name proposals!
I think your proposal to allow binary time stamps is a good one. Or even string
time stamps. It could have a standard name of **`time_stamp`**. For example, if
you organize a binary time stamp in 4-bit fields (which can be marked up using
@ChrisBarker-NOAA UTC is, in practical terms, a specification for how to turn
TAI (a count of SI seconds since the TAI epoch) into time stamps that are
synchronized with the motions of the earth. It uses a combination of the
Gregorian calendar and leap seconds to achieve this goal. It does not,
@ChrisBarker-NOAA @JonathanGregory Again, please back up a step or two and stop
thinking in terms of UTC and TAI and don't focus on the time stamps. What we
have in a time variable containing fully metric elapsed times is, in essence,
TAI with an offset subtracted. It is elapsed time since an
"""
I think your proposal to allow binary time stamps is a good one. Or even string
time stamps. It could have a standard name of time_stamp. For example, if you
organize a binary time stamp in 4-bit fields (which can be marked up using
flag_masks and flag_meanings attributes) in high-to-low
Dear Jim and Chris
Thank for your latest exchanges. What I said before them is similar to what
Chris says, I think.
(1) I used the name **gregorian_utc** for what Jim called **gregorian_metric**.
In this calendar, timestamps (including the reference time) are UTC, and the
conversion uses leap
Dear Chris et al.
David Hassell has now got permissions to merge pull requests. I believe this
will be done soon, now he is able to do it (since a couple of days ago).
Cheers
Jonathan
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
dblodgett-usgs approved this pull request.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/pull/149#pullrequestreview-171850274
