Steve Allen said: >>> What *has* been proposed, where I have seen it, is to remove >>> leap-seconds, and leave the "keep civil time in sync with the sun" >>> up to local governments who can mess with their timezones as they >>> see fit. >> >> Right. And of the proposals on the table, this is the one that seems to me >> to be the most practical. > > This notion leaves open the question of the name UTC. In particular, > can the delegates to the ITU-R RA be persuaded to vote for a new > version of TF.460 if they are aware that the new wording will change > the legal definition of the word "day" in every country which has > adopted UTC as its time scale?
I don't know who will vote for what. Removing future leap seconds won't change the legal definition of the word "day" anywhere. What it does mean is that, in countries using "UTC" as part of the legal definition, the centre of the night will drift away from 00:00 before stepping back again. In effect, it will vary in the same sawtooth way that midnight varies around 00:00:00 with leap seconds. This can be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on your view of things. > Will the delegates from other nations > simply reject a proposal which is rooted in and strongly pushed by the > military needs of the USA? What's the basis of this assertion? -- Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler, Email: cl...@davros.org | it will get its revenge. Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer Mobile: +44 7973 377646 _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
