Harlan Stenn said: > I'm still thinking the answer is "leave existing 'names' alone - if you > want TAI use TAI. If you want UTC, use UTC. If you want something new, > call it something new." > > If people are using a defined name for a defined purpose and it works > for them, leave it alone. If people are using a defined name for a > defined purpose and it does not work for them, this group needs to come > up with a new name for the thing they think will solve their problems.
The problem is that some people use UTC to mean "TAI plus adjustments to keep it less than a second from UT1" while other people use UTC to mean "the basis of legal time here". For the second set, using a new name for a different concept doesn't help. There are good reasons for wanting legal time to be TAI+<n>+<local offset>, where <n> is a constant (somewhere around 35?) that never changes in the future and <local offset> is chosen by the relevant lawmakers and is normally a multiple of 15 minutes. If you accept that these reasons override those for keeping leap seconds, then a name change won't make it easy. -- 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 https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
