Re: [LEAPSECS] Defining our terms (was Re: [LEAPSECS] Longer leap second notice)

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <>
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 09:08:35 +0100

In message <>, William Thompson writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> Universal Time = confusing term which comes handy when trying to
>> manipulate discussions about leap second futures.
>I have to take issue with this one.

My point was that when you just say "Universal Time", how will we know
if you mean UTC, UT0, UT1 or UT2 ?

>It's obvious from the current definition
>and terminology used with Coordinated Universal Time that the original intent
>was that UTC would be more-or-less synchronous with UT0, UT1, UT2. The current
>debate is whether we should move away from that original intent.

Correct: we are talking about what the Leap(time) function should do.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Sat Jan 07 2006 - 00:18:50 PST

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