[LEAPSECS] Footnote about CCITT and UTC
Tom Van Baak
tvb at LeapSecond.com
Fri Dec 12 15:03:12 EST 2008
> 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 little attention without a baseline.
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.
Another interesting point, based on press clippings alone, it would
seem leap seconds get as much or more press as leap days. It
appears that DST often generates grumbling but never a revolt,
leap seconds a yawn or wink from the general public (except for
those few of us who cringe), and leap days no argument at all
More information about the LEAPSECS