[LEAPSECS] ISO TC 37

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Ian Batten said:

> However, it's somewhat disingenuous to claim that UTC as constituted meets this requirement, but UTC without leap seconds doesn't.  S(9) doesn't say "GMT +/- 1s", it says "GMT".  Why is one second's error bar axiomatically OK, while 1 minute, 1 hour, etc, not?  The legislation specifies a timescale.   The assumption that +/-1 1s is acceptable is a matter for case law, which as yet hasn't arisen.   The assumption that +/- 1min isn't acceptable is not acceptable is also a matter for case law, which as yet hasn't arisen.


I am aware of case law where a difference of 8 seconds between clocks was
relevant. That's the shortest interval I've seen so far in my searches.

(In general I'd agree with you: the permitted error is a question for the
courts as and when it comes up.)


> If people wish to argue that the '78 Act requires GMT (and, note, the act only relates to the interpretation of other legislation, not to civil contracts or "what your watch says")


When I gave a paper on this at a law conference, it was suggest that -
should this ever be a problem - lawyers would simply start adding "choice
of time" clauses to contracts, just like they add "choice of governing law"
clauses.

Also note that it's routine to put the time zone into contracts where that
is likely to be relevant.

(It's odd to note that while the Interpretation Act only talks about other
Acts, the Summer Time Act refers to "any enactment, Order in Council,
order, regulation, rule, byelaw, deed, notice, or other document
whatsoever" and doesn't seem to recognize the possibility that someone
might explicitly put a time zone other than GMT/BST, apart from the
exemption for astronomers.)

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather          | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: clive at davros.org     | it will get its revenge.
Web: http://www.davros.org  |   - Henry Spencer
Mobile: +44 7973 377646