Hi there, El Fri, 03 November 2000, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng escribióº > On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Dave Thomas wrote: > > > Time.local 59, 49, 5, 3, 11, 2000, 5, 308, false, "CST"# => Fri Nov 03 05:49:59 CST 2000 > > Time.local 60, 49, 5, 3, 11, 2000, 5, 308, false, "CST"# => Fri Nov 03 05:50:00 CST 2000 > > Doesn't this paragraph from RFC 1305: > suggest that that is worng? The time yielded should be 03 05:49:60, I > think. I'm no expert on this topic, though. I agree with you... Leap seconds are real, like leap years are.. I mean, 2000-02-29 really is that, and not 2000-03-01, because this is a leap year... the same way, in a 'leap second' year, if they are inserted, they do exist as such and not representing the next second... And returning to 24:00.... while such a time as '24:32' is recommended to be written as '00:31', '24:00' == '00:00 of the following day' is allowed and, actually, used when talking at future times... So you can talk of, eg, guard changes at 00:00, 06:00, 12:00, 18:00 and 24:00 hours every day... See http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html for a brief explanation of ISO 8601... regards, david ---------------------------------------------------------------------- + Mensaje enviado gracias al correo gratuito de Desmasiado Corp. + + http://correo.demasiado.com + ----------------------------------------------------------------------