IS0 8601 (the common date time notation used all over the net)
permits the hours to be between 00 and 24 (inclusive!).
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601>
<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html>
> As every day both starts and ends with midnight, the two notations
> 00:00 and 24:00 are available to distinguish the two midnights that
> can be associated with one date. This means that the following two
> notations refer to exactly the same point in time
and
> In case an unambiguous representation of time is required, 00:00 is
> usually the preferred notation for midnight and not 24:00. Digital
> clocks display 00:00 and not 24:00.
and
> ISO 8601 does not specify, whether its notations specify a point in
> time or a time period. This means for example that ISO 8601 does
> not define whether 09:00 refers to the exact end of the ninth hour
> of the day or the period from 09:00 to 09:01 or anything else. The
> users of the standard must somehow agree on the exact
> interpretation of the time notation if this should be of any concern.
Just as KD3JF says below ... it gets more complicated the more you
think about it.
On Sep 9, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Augie Hansen wrote:
> Paul Gates, KD3JF wrote:
>> What amuses me is when some hams use 2400 hrs... No such thing
>> IMO. There is 2359 and then 0000 hrs. At least that is what I
>> learned in the Army.
>>
>
> 2400 is a legitimate synonym for 0000 in the 24 hour time system.
> It can
> be used as the specification of an ending time, but is not used as a
> starting time. I write firmware for security systems and some other
> dedicated systems that perform actions based, at least in part, on
> date
> and time data. 2400 is typically used to indicate the end of time
> period
> for the current day, such as 2100-2400 UTC. If it were specified as
> 2100-0000 there is an ambiguity (today or tomorrow?) that has to be
> resolved by software. Using 2100-2359 produces a one-second shorter
> than
> desired period. Maybe not a big deal, but it could be in some
> circumstances.
>
> There is also another allowed value that might seem strange: a time
> such
> as 23:59:60 can occur when a positive leap second is inserted by a
> leap-second event. Software needs to be aware of such situations and
> deal with them intelligently.
>
>> It is truly bizarre that ARRL refuses to use the time
>> honored standard.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Gus Hansen
> KB0YH
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
--
Kevin Purcell
kevinpurcell@pobox.com
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|