dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca
Fri Jul 1 17:27:03 UTC 2011
On Jul 1, 2011, at 13:12, Tim Parenti wrote:
> If we decide TAI should be added, we just have to go
> with applying the best data we've got into the future (i.e., TAI-UTC = 34s)
> until something new comes along. I think it'd be more than reasonable to
> expect anyone who'd actually be using TAI to understand that.
The vote on "Proposal TF-460-7" is coming up in January 2012 (for possible retirement in 2018), so it'd be prudent to wait until then. But if the proponents of abolishing it do have a need, then having a TZ=TAI value would be a good option in helping them.
As PHK's ACM article mentions:
> If the proposal fails to gain 70 percent of the votes, then leap seconds will continue, and we had better start fixing computers to deal properly, or at least more predictably, with them.
POSIX in particular may may to clarify what to do in the situations mentioned in this thread.
More information about the tz