Re: Portable general timestamp format, not 2038-limited

On Jul 3, 1:10 am, Paul Rubin wrote: > Well, if you're trying to pick just one timestamp standard, I'd say > you're better off using a worldwide one rather than a national one, no > matter how the bureaucracies work. TAI is derived from atomic clocks > all over the world

Re: Portable general timestamp format, not 2038-limited

On Jun 27, 10:51 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: > According to , UTC is derived from > TAI. According to , TAI is a proper time, but the very first section in the TAI discussion page cites a refereed paper by the

Re: Portable general timestamp format, not 2038-limited

On Jun 26, 2:17 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: > Martin Gregorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Same one already given:http://cr.yp.to/proto/utctai.html > > > > Nope - you referencedleap seconds, not TAI and not that URL > > Oh whoops, I thought I put that url further up in th

Re: Portable general timestamp format, not 2038-limited

On Jun 25, 6:46 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: > TAI really does seem like the most absolute--if you are a user in > orbit or on Mars, then UTC timestamps will seem pretty meaningless and > artificial. TAI makes sense for clocks on the surface of the earth (at least until ion tra