[LEAPSECS] Definition of Standard time - Brooks Harris

[Brooks Harris]

On 2014-02-16 09:22 AM, Steve Allen wrote:

> On Sun 2014-02-16T09:07:11 -0800, Brooks Harris hath writ:

>> I wonder why they avoid making clear definitions of Standard time

>> and Daylight? Is it because previous precedent had already confused

>> the meanings of the terms, or maybe because they emanate from the

>> "Western world" and can't be agreed on internationally? Or something

>> else?

> These are questions better posed in the context of the tz mail list.

Perhaps. But it revolves around UTC.

>

> In that list there exist examples where the pronouncements of

> impending (or sometimes already implemented) time changes are

> accompanied by words where the bureaucrats in charge show that

> they believe there is some sort of international scheme for

> time zones.  Apparently nobody told them that there are no rules

> and that they can choose any offset they like and any dates of

> changes that they like.

I think "bureaucrats in charge" would be relieved and pleased if the 
*where* an "international scheme for
time zones". After all, time-keeping is fundamental to commerce and 
culture in general. Most governments are going to want to interact with 
the world in cooperative ways where time is concerned.

They are also now dependent on computers and software implementations of 
time. In may respects, its the behavior of computers that define the 
"common use" of timekeeping. And its with computers where many of the 
interoperability problems originate.

So maybe there's now an opportunity for some standards body to create a 
comprehensive and rigorous standard that spanned UTC to local time.


>

> I would not be surprised if the ISO folks found that in many

> jurisdictions there is no statutory basis for the summer/daylight

> terminology, so no source of clear definitions.


Sure. But some, like the US, do have reasonably complete definitions 
(even if they change details unexpectedly). Many follow that example in 
the hopes of being compatible. Clear definitions won't come from 
governments - they need to originate with the experts in the timekeeping 
community.

Only a comprehensive plan which aims to fix the obvious and well known 
problems is going to head off the "kill Leap Seconds" movement.

I tried to explore how that might be started and was blown to bits. OK, 
if not me, who's going to try? Or will we just roll over and watch 4500 
years of timekeeping tradition evaporate?

-Brooks