[LEAPSECS] An example
nimh at pipe.nl
Wed Nov 3 07:04:30 EDT 2010
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>Then why aren't you demanding proper engineering instead? Giving in to
>>sloppy engineering won't be any improvement, now would it? In the long
>>it will be even more dangerous.
> Proper engineering is all about picking your challenges in light of
> their benefits.
> Leap seconds carry no discernible benefit to non-astronomers so
> even if they were trivial to code correctly, they would not be
> worth it.
Agreed. Totally. Many applications, maybe even a vast majority, would be
better off without. No problem there.
But the ITU proposal is not only about getting rid of leap seconds. It
tries to do this in a way that punishes proper engineering attempts of
those who have been making serious effort to do things right by trusting
(and hence relying on) defining properties of UTC.
If leap seconds in broadcast time scales prove too cumbersome, switching
to a time scale that lacks them would be proper. Don't put the burden of
changing the semantics of the term "UTC" precisely on those who have a
need for leap seconds.
More information about the LEAPSECS