Ulrich Windl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |> > Sun Jan 1 00:59:57 CET 2006 |> > Sun Jan 1 00:59:58 CET 2006 |> > Sun Jan 1 00:59:59 CET 2006 |> > Sun Jan 1 00:59:59 CET 2006 <=== leap second occured |> |> Shouldn't the output have been "Sun Jan 1 00:59:60 CET 2006"?
IMHO, there are pretty strong arguments that attempting to implement a UTC leap this way (i.e., showing the 60 or even repeating the 59) on a computer clock could be called an undesireable and potentially disruptive engineering practice. Remember that ITU-R TF.460 was written for pulse-per-second timecodes, where this makes sense, and not for operating system APIs, network protocols, etc. I think, the ITU-R TF.460 idea of a second labeled 60 should not be implemented in these areas without very careful thinking about the consequences. There are much less troublesome conventions possible for performing the 1-second UTC adjustment in a computer clock: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kuhn-leapsecond-00.txt Markus -- Markus Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ || CB3 0FD, Great Britain _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
