On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 14:14:07 -0500, Brooks Harris wrote:
> Hi Gerard,
>
> On 2015-03-07 12:04 PM, G Ashton wrote:
>>
>> Brooks Harris wrote on Saturday, March 7, 2015 11:50 :
>> .
>> .
>> "The challenge I'm trying to solve is to provide a deterministic
>> timekeeping
>> and labeling scheme for d
On Sat 2015-03-07T14:14:07 -0500, Brooks Harris hath writ:
> It is typically warned that date and time before 1972 cannot be
> accurately represented with NTP or POSIX, for examples.
I would say that for PTP
* all seconds are always SI seconds
* seconds after 1972-01-01 correspond to (TAI - 10)
*
Hi Gerard,
On 2015-03-07 12:04 PM, G Ashton wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote on Saturday, March 7, 2015 11:50 :
.
.
"The challenge I'm trying to solve is to provide a deterministic timekeeping
and labeling scheme for date and time *after* 1972-01-01T00:00:00Z (UTC) =
1972-01-01T00:00:10 (TAI). This i
Brooks Harris wrote on Saturday, March 7, 2015 11:50 :
.
.
"The challenge I'm trying to solve is to provide a deterministic timekeeping
and labeling scheme for date and time *after* 1972-01-01T00:00:00Z (UTC) =
1972-01-01T00:00:10 (TAI). This is essentially the purpose of "civil time"
timekeeping
On 2015-03-06 08:30 PM, Paul Hirose wrote:
On 2015-03-06 11:04, Brooks Harris wrote:
The "rubber-band era" is
just entirely irrelevant. Its historically interesting, and may be
required for some special application concerning that period, but for
practical "UTC-like" timekeeping its just an hist
A general API that deals with old dates should allow for the possibility the
original observation was stated in apparent solar time. Or, an explicit warning
should be provided that the authors of the API believed that for the intended
applications, given the limited accuracy of local time standa
