Re: [LEAPSECS] Mechanism to provide tai-utc.dat locally

From: John Cowan <>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:22:22 -0500

Rob Seaman scripsit:

> >I don't care if you want to implement leap-milliseconds, as long
> >as you tell me 10 years in advance when they happen.
> Again - with no intent to minimize the issues - what supports this
> assertion? Is there any reason to believe that 10 years advance notice
> would encourage projects and vendors to do anything other than ignore
> the requirement entirely? A statement that 10 years, or 600 years,
> notice is all that is needed to resolve all the problems, smooth over
> all the complications, is entirely too glib.

You are confusing the question of fixity (which is what notice is
about) with granularity. It's true that probably no one would bother
to implement the ALHP. However, if computer technologists were handed a
list of leap seconds from now until 2015, and told "Implement these," it
wouldn't matter how many or how few leap seconds there were. But since
you astronomers insist on a fixed maximum for |DUT1|, no such table
can exist.

The proposal is this: look at the trends, take your best shot at
working out a leap-year schedule for 10 years in the future, and then
live with it.

Newbies always ask:                             John Cowan
  "Elements or attributes?            
Which will serve me best?"            
  Those who know roar like lions;
  Wise hackers smile like tigers.                   --a tanka, or extended haiku
Received on Thu Dec 28 2006 - 17:22:41 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 04 2010 - 09:44:55 PDT