On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:16:13 + (UTC), Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Steve Allen wrote:
>
>> On Sun 2014-01-19T07:39:51 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
>>> When I was on the ISO C (*NOT* "ANSI c") committee, we looked at
>>> the issue.
>>> Then we asked the expert communit
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Steve Allen wrote:
> On Sun 2014-01-19T07:39:51 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
> > When I was on the ISO C (*NOT* "ANSI c") committee, we looked at the issue.
> > Then we asked the expert community (that is, you lot), to come up with a
> > consensus proposal that we coul
On 2014-01-19 11:06 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
NTP *does* refer to POSIX - Figure 4: Interesting Historic NTP Dates
refers to "First day UNIX" and locates it 63072000 seconds before
1972-01-01T00:00:00Z (UTC). This helps solve one problem - when,
exactly, was the POSIX "the Epoch".
Ok. I meant a no
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 23:10:41 -0800, Brooks Harris wrote:
> On 2014-01-18 09:39 AM, Zefram wrote:
>> Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>>> No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will discover that
>>> what is stored is the count of seconds since the Epoch. Broken-down
>>> time is used only when ther
On Sun 2014-01-19T07:39:51 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
> When I was on the ISO C (*NOT* "ANSI c") committee, we looked at the issue.
> Then we asked the expert community (that is, you lot), to come up with a
> consensus proposal that we could look at. As far as I know, the committee
> is s
On 2014-01-18 11:39 PM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Brooks Harris said:
tm_sec + tm_min*60 + tm_hour*3600 + tm_yday*86400 +
(tm_year???70)*31536000 + ((tm_year???69)/4)*86400 ???
((tm_year???1)/100)*86400 + ((tm_year+299)/400)*86400
This is an *uncompensated-for-leap-seconds* Gregorian calendar c
> Also, not all versions of POSIX are equally good. I've found smoking gun
> bugs in some implementations of gmtime() and related.
Please put the details on a web page and tell us the URL.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
LEAPSECS mail
Brooks Harris said:
> tm_sec + tm_min*60 + tm_hour*3600 + tm_yday*86400 +
> (tm_year???70)*31536000 + ((tm_year???69)/4)*86400 ???
> ((tm_year???1)/100)*86400 + ((tm_year+299)/400)*86400
>
> This is an *uncompensated-for-leap-seconds* Gregorian calendar counting
> scheme with an artificially impo
On 2014-01-18 09:39 AM, Zefram wrote:
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will discover that
what is stored in the cound of seconds since the Epoch. Broken-down
time is used only when there is a human to be humored.
Sure, scalar time_t values are used undern
On 2014-01-18 09:29 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
Brooks,
Maybe I missed it way back in the thread, but can you give me an example why
you'd want a proleptic TAI or UTC?
I'm working on revising the names and a fuller explanation, but briefly -
The idea is to declare a 1hz timeline before 1972-01-
Brooks,
Maybe I missed it way back in the thread, but can you give me an example why
you'd want a proleptic TAI or UTC?
/tvb
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
On 2014-01-18 03:07 PM, Eric R. Smith wrote:
On 2014-01-18 12:02, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
[POSIX time]
...
It's defined as a transformation of a broken-down UTC timestamp, not
(despite its name) as a count of seconds since some instant.
No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will dis
On 2014-01-18 08:02 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
POSIX time is defined without reference to NTP, which is its own world
with its own standard. Note that the NTP standard, RFC-1305, is dated
March 1992, which is well after the first POSIX standard (1988 - the
Ugly Green Book). Nor does NTP have any r
On 2014-01-18 12:02, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>> [POSIX time]
...
>> It's defined as a transformation of a broken-down UTC timestamp, not
>> (despite its name) as a count of seconds since some instant.
>
> No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will discover that
> what is stored in the c
On Sat 2014-01-18T13:25:58 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:
> LEAP_SECS list provides a unique forum for discussion.
Yet LEAPSECS is like all the recorded discussions among various
international agencies: no consensus. The folks who are determining
policy among the various national bodies that con
On 2014-01-18 03:28 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
I think it is cute you lay all these plans, but how are you going to
sell your new timescale ?
I'm certainly not going to do that alone. It will take a concerted
effort by a lot of people with more credibility in the field than I.
I think its
Ian Batten said:
> Certainly, if Scotland
> does opt for independence (on current polling and betting it seems unlikely,
> but
> let's suppose) the pressure for England to move to CET will increase.
> There's some confusion
> as to whether the proposal would be moving the UK to UTC+1/UTC+2 as
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:39:00 +, Zefram wrote:
> Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>> No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will discover that
>> what is stored is the count of seconds since the Epoch. Broken-down
>> time is used only when there is a human to be humored.
>
> Sure, scalar tim
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>No. If your poke around into how time is used, you will discover that
>what is stored in the cound of seconds since the Epoch. Broken-down
>time is used only when there is a human to be humored.
Sure, scalar time_t values are used underneath, and I didn't say
otherwise. T
In message <71d95256-adee-4323-ade4-b945643ab...@batten.eu.org>, Ian Batten wri
tes:
>
>On 18 Jan 2014, at 11:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>> For instance I doubt you'll find any UK politician willing to push
>> a s/GMT/$whatever/ legislation since that will just feed the UKIP
>> trolls and be
On 18 Jan 2014, at 11:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> For instance I doubt you'll find any UK politician willing to push
> a s/GMT/$whatever/ legislation since that will just feed the UKIP
> trolls and become a factor in the Scottish independence referendum.
I'm not sure that's true. The rea
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:37:36 +, Zefram wrote:
> Brooks Harris wrote:
>> The whole purpose of TAI is
>> a "realization" of TT, right? TAI shields us (I mean us normal
>> computer people, not astronomers or cosmologists) from the details of
>> how TAI is m
Brooks Harris wrote:
> The whole purpose of TAI is
>a "realization" of TT, right? TAI shields us (I mean us normal
>computer people, not astronomers or cosmologists) from the details of
>how TAI is maintained
TAI does not shield you from the lack of atomic
I think it is cute you lay all these plans, but how are you going to
sell your new timescale ?
How will you get EU to change UTC to $whatever in all their regulations ?
If you can honestly tell them "It's just a renaming, there is no semantic
difference", you *might* be able to persuade them to
Brooks Harris wrote:
>The best I'd thought of so far was "Proleptic TAI" and "Proleptic
>UTC", but I agree those concepts along that portion of the timescale
>may want their own names.
If those columns of the table refer to your proleptic extensions of
these time scales, then in principle it's val
On 2014-01-18 01:33 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
Yes, its new. Well, actually, NTP already defined something like it,
but here I'm trying to make it also encompass POSIX "the Epoch" and
1588/PTP's "epoch" - "1970-01-01T00:00:00Z".
Opps. Typo!
I meant 1588/PTP's "epoch" - 1970-01-01 00:00:00 (TA
On 2014-01-17 05:08 PM, Zefram wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
The idea behind "CCT" is to better define "civil time".
That seems only vaguely related to your more clearly stated objectives
of proleptic versions of TAI and modern UTC. It's too late to better
define pre-1972 civil time, and prolept
On 2014-01-17 10:49 PM, Ian Batten wrote:
On 18 Jan 2014, at 01:22, Zefram wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
Yes, I understand that. Perhaps using the word "origin" was careless.
Maybe you can suggest a better term.
"proleptic". You may usefully add "with astronomical year numbering" to
make clea
On 2014-01-17 05:22 PM, Zefram wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
Yes, I understand that. Perhaps using the word "origin" was careless.
Maybe you can suggest a better term.
"proleptic". You may usefully add "with astronomical year numbering" to
make clear that zero and negative year numbers are valid
On 18 Jan 2014, at 01:22, Zefram wrote:
> Brooks Harris wrote:
>> Yes, I understand that. Perhaps using the word "origin" was careless.
>> Maybe you can suggest a better term.
>
> "proleptic". You may usefully add "with astronomical year numbering" to
> make clear that zero and negative year n
On 2014-01-17 04:06 AM, Zefram wrote:
- "correction" is more widely understandable than "compensated" or
some more technical term.
"Correction" suggests a term that must always be added into certain
computations. This is quite different from a leap, which is an one-time
irregularity in an other
Brooks Harris wrote:
>Yes, I understand that. Perhaps using the word "origin" was careless.
>Maybe you can suggest a better term.
"proleptic". You may usefully add "with astronomical year numbering" to
make clear that zero and negative year numbers are valid. But really,
when you're defining a t
Brooks Harris wrote:
>To us, to "drop" a count and to "leap" a count (which we have to do
>sometimes) have inverse meanings.
Ah, interesting. Thanks. That's worth a footnote in explanations of
leap seconds. Not enough of a clash to be worth renaming them, though.
-zefram
_
Brooks Harris wrote:
>A) If you establish a new timescale that includes the "Leap Seconds
>mechanism" you'd better rename it to make it clear its part of this
>new timescale, not some other.
Your proleptic extension of UTC certainly needs a name distinct from
"UTC", yes. That doesn't argue for re
Brooks Harris wrote:
>The idea behind "CCT" is to better define "civil time".
That seems only vaguely related to your more clearly stated objectives
of proleptic versions of TAI and modern UTC. It's too late to better
define pre-1972 civil time, and proleptic extension of UTC doesn't affect
curre
On 2014-01-17 04:06 AM, Zefram wrote:
C) By declaring the anchor-point to existing TAI and UTC definitions
as 1972-01-01T00:00:00Z we have imposed an *uncompensated* Gregorian
calendar counting scheme on the proleptic part of the new timescale,
making -01-01T00:00:00Z the origin of the new ti
On 2014-01-17 04:06 AM, Zefram wrote:
- Leap Seconds don't (theoretically) only "leap" - they could also "drop"
The word "leap" doesn't carry any connotation about direction.
In our world, that of television and media, is certainly does!
I think this is a really important point because it illu
On 2014-01-17 04:06 AM, Zefram wrote:
E) Because "Leap Seconds" are at the center of the "kill Leap
Seconds" debate,
...
we also rename (our beloved) "Leap Seconds".
Respelling isn't going to fool most of the people in this debate.
Nobody is trying to fool anybody. I think there
On 2014-01-17 04:06 AM, Zefram wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
I'll suggest a tentative name of this new timescale - "Common
Calendar Time (CCT)".
Decent name.
Hi Zefram,
Thanks for the response. I'll take this as an encouraging sign there is
merit to the idea.
B) Extrapolate an SI (1hz) tim
Zefram wrote:
>
> You show your "Earth Correction" being a constant 10 s prior to
> 1972, and following the TAI-UTC difference thereafter. This makes a
> poor correction. If the intent is to define a proleptic version of
> modern UTC, you need to decide on dates for proleptic leap seconds.
For
Brooks Harris wrote:
>I'll suggest a tentative name of this new timescale - "Common
>Calendar Time (CCT)".
Decent name.
>B) Extrapolate an SI (1hz) timeline into the indefinite past,
>essentially declaring TAI and UTC proleptic timescales
You're conflating two different kinds of time scale here.
On 2014-01-15 11:36 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Thu 2014-01-16T06:55:00 +, Clive D.W. Feather hath writ:
Poul-Henning Kamp 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
42 matches
Mail list logo
