Re: Call for comments: HTML5.x time zone proposal [I18N-ACTION-327]

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