As part of some research on a different topic, I came across a
summary of the 1980 plenary meeting of CCITT, where appearantly the
CCITT formally decided to switch from GMT to UTC.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD com
In message: <10832.1229096...@critter.freebsd.dk>
"Poul-Henning Kamp" writes:
:
: As part of some research on a different topic, I came across a
: summary of the 1980 plenary meeting of CCITT, where appearantly the
: CCITT formally decided to switch from GMT to UTC.
that would make i
In message <20081212.091847.-653353160@bsdimp.com>, "M. Warner Losh" writes
:
>In message: <10832.1229096...@critter.freebsd.dk>
>"Poul-Henning Kamp" writes:
>:
>: As part of some research on a different topic, I came across a
>: summary of the 1980 plenary meeting of CCITT, where
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> PS: According to Wikipedia, ISO 31-1 defines a day as 86400 seconds,
> anybody here who can verify if this is really the original text ?
ISO 8601-2004 cites ISO 31-1, and specifies several meanings for "day",
one of which is equivalent to 86400 sec
In message , Tony Fi
nch writes:
>ISO 8601-2004 cites ISO 31-1, and specifies several meanings for "day",
>one of which is equivalent to 86400 seconds.
Wonderful confusion.
It is insteresting that the militant 86400 second definition of
ISO-31-1 only got superseeded once somebody tried to make U
Wonderful confusion.
It is insteresting that the militant 86400 second definition of
ISO-31-1 only got superseeded once somebody tried to make UTC
compliant with it :-)
But if nothing else, it underscores how little attention people
have paid to leap seconds...
It's hard to know how much or li
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>PS: According to Wikipedia, ISO 31-1 defines a day as 86400 seconds,
>anybody here who can verify if this is really the original text ?
Yes. ISO 31-1:1992(E) lists the following as units of time "which may
be used together with SI units because of their practical importa
Tom Van Baak wrote:
>Does anyone know much time ISO spends defining leap days,
>or does everyone just take them for granted? Is there official
>text on the definition.
ISO 8601 fully defines the Gregorian calendar, including the complete
leap day rule. It says relatively little about leap seconds
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Zefram wrote:
>
> [ISO 8601 is] neutral about whether and when leap seconds may occur:
> that's an application issue. The timezone designators are specifically
> described as being relative to UTC, but it is more consistent with the
> rest of the standard to treat that mention
Tony Finch wrote:
>I can't see anything in ISO 8601-2000 or -2004 that supports "vague UT".
>Both versions of the standard are quite specific about times of day being
>UTC or at a specific offset from UTC.
Quoting from ISO 8601:2004(E). Start with the most fundamental
definition, section 2.1.1:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Zefram wrote:
>
> NOTE These expressions apply to both UTC and non-UTC based time
> scales for time of day.
>
> This seems to be the crucial bit that you missed. It's explicit about
> allowing time scales other than UTC, and doesn't restrict the choice
> of time s
11 matches
Mail list logo
