- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:43:33 -0400
- To: John C Klensin <john+w3c@jck.com>
- Cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
John C Klensin scripsit: > My astronomer colleagues from years past claimed that the only > incremental times that actually worked accurately were expressed in > seconds and fractions of sections. To astronomers, at least solar-system astronomers, "second" is a measure of angle, like (but not numerically equal to) "second of arc", and not of what the rest of us call "time" at all. > calendar units (like days), the only question was how fuzzy the > statements got because their being fuzzy was a given. In practical terms, intervals can be expressed in months + minutes + seconds. If you don't care about leap seconds, you can leave off the minutes and just work with 1 min = 60 s. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Values of beeta will give rise to dom! (5th/6th edition 'mv' said this if you tried to rename '.' or '..' entries; see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/odd.html)
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2014 13:43:57 UTC