When you say "defined for all history and the future", does that mean literally what it says? It accounts for the adjustments to the Calendar through various centuries, some of which are gaps of over a month (that is, corrections to get the calendar back in the right place, by adding more than a month or skipping more than a month)? I only have one user who bitches about this (he's an archeologist, so he has a reason, although his expectation may not be as reasonable as his reason). I'm not saying this is a requirement, I'm simply asking whether TAI can really handle these situations. Seth P.S.: If anyone receives this message as HTML or as combined plain text/html, please let me know. I think I've got the problem solved as long as haskell.org is in the address, but it may not be solved for addresses in other domains (such as John's above). Thanks, the response will help me troubleshoot. My logs are indicating that something went out as plain text, but I still get complaints that they arrived as html+plain text. TIA John Meacham wrote:
you forgot some vital ones
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 02:43:50AM -0800, Ashley Yakeley wrote:
* POSIX time
Can do accurate calculations on calendar times. Can store UTC times reliably. Cannot store TAI times reliably. Broken for all leap seconds.
cannot represent durations undefined before 1970, muddy definition in the future.
* TAI time with limited leap-second table
Can do accurate calculations on calendar times. Cannot store UTC times reliably. Can store TAI times reliably. Broken for leap seconds after table runs out.
can represent durations defined for all history and future
Which of these is better?
TAI is clearly superior. John