In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mark Calabretta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Wed 2006/01/18 08:17:54 -, Francois Meyer wrote
: in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
:
: >Maybe it should be, but this is far from being
: >obvious from its current definition.
:
: I agre
This should provide some more grist for understanding the reality of
civil time. This happens pretty often somewhere in the world.
A DOT final ruling on Indiana came out today, affecting time zones
starting April 2, 2006:
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot0406.htm
> Under the Uniform Time Act of 19
On Wed 2006/01/18 08:17:54 -, Francois Meyer wrote
in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>Maybe it should be, but this is far from being
>obvious from its current definition.
I agree that the current definitions leave a lot to be desired in terms
of clarity and rigour - an unchari
A new Internet-Draft with implementation guidelines on how to handle UTC
leap seconds in Internet protocols was posted today on the IETF web
site:
"Coordinated Universal Time with Smoothed Leap Seconds (UTC-SLS)",
Markus Kuhn, 18-Jan-06. (36752 bytes)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/dra
On 2006-01-18, Steve Allen wrote:
> Now I am confused.
>
> By my reading of the documents, ITU-R did not define DTAI until the
> most recent revision of TF.460 in 2002. DUT1 had been defined since
> very early on.
You are right, the name DTAI has apparently been introduced in 2002. It
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Francois Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Mark Calabretta wrote:
:
: > On Fri 2006/01/13 11:17:52 -, Michael Deckers wrote
: > in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
: >
: > > I must get TAI, up to an integration constan
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Francois Meyer writes:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Mark Calabretta wrote:
1. UTC and TAI share the same rate, the same
origin, the same second. And therefore :
UTC - TAI = 0
This is wrong, plain and simple wrong.
Well, if
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Francois Meyer writes:
>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Mark Calabretta wrote:
>1. UTC and TAI share the same rate, the same
> origin, the same second. And therefore :
>
>UTC - TAI = 0
This is wrong, plain and simple wrong.
Please don't come back until you ha
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Mark Calabretta wrote:
> On Fri 2006/01/13 11:17:52 -, Michael Deckers wrote
> in a message to: LEAPSECS@ROM.USNO.NAVY.MIL
>
> > I must get TAI, up to an integration constant. This is correct.
> > The integral of d( UTC ) is TAI (up to an integration constant),
> > b
