[LEAPSECS] Leap Seconds schedule prior to 1972

[Brooks Harris]

On 2016-04-27 05:11 PM, John Sauter wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 15:13 -0400, Brooks Harris wrote:
>>   
>>   I understand. But its always seemed to me those old formats should
>> be obsolesced, that ISO 8601 presented an attractive alternative,
>> that the YMDhms order made such good sense. Of course formats must
>> remain reverse compatible, so they've proably had to stick with what
>> they'd done. But in your case the whole timescale is new (wait, maybe
>> its old? :-) ) so its an opportunity to suggest adopting a more
>> sensible and modern lexicon.
>> -Brooks
>>
> Since the Gregorian dates appear only as comments they could be changed
> easily.  Perhaps we should show both forms.  What do other people on
> this list think should be done?
>      John Sauter (John_Sauter at systemeyescomputerstore.com)
Not two! That just begs more confusion. My complaint that 8601 style is 
not more widely adopted should not slow down your proposal - its a minor 
point of style.
-B
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LEAPSECS mailing list
> LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com
> https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/leapsecs/attachments/20160427/d69b6f3a/attachment.html>