> Your
> formal comment suggests changing that epoch, not
> the definition of a second.

These remarks are not part of the formal comment.

> We use "TAI" for lack of a better term.

Um, a better term is "The number of seconds elapsed since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 as measured in the atomic time scale then maintained by the BIH. This time scale was later renamed TAI, and it has been maintained by the BIPM since 1988."

Or if that's too long winded, try: "The number of seconds elapsed since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 as measured in the TAI time scale and its predecessor."

> The number of UTC seconds is the same as the number of TAI seconds.

Yes. My point is that the organization that defines TAI has raised the possibility that it might be suppressed in favor of UTC. So, in 40 years people might not be familiar with the term "TAI second" and "TAI time scale". I'm just offering this remark as a very mild warning. If you're happy to use these terms, which I would expect will be widely understood for at least the next 20 years even if TAI is formally suppressed tomorrow, then that's perfectly fine with me.

Regards,

Alan

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports