Address reviewer comments:

* Fix several typo-s.
* Beef up example code.
* Explain why hours, minutes and seconds are divided the way they are.

rebuttal.html

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
 <address align=right>
 Document number: DxxxxR0
 <br/>
-Date: 2023-10-05
+Date: 2023-10-06
 <br/>
 Audience:  Library Evolution Working Group
 <br/>
@@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ <h2>Contents</h2>
 <li><a href="#Existing">The <code>%S</code> flag as specified in the
 <code>&lt;chrono&gt;</code> library is existing code</a></li>
 <li><a href="#Good"><code>%S</code> is a good design</a></li>
+<li><a href="#Acknowledgments">Acknowledgments</a></li>
+<li><a href="#References">References</a></li>
 </ul>
 
 <a name="Introduction"></a><h2>Introduction</h2>
@@ -36,10 +38,16 @@ <h2>Contents</h2>
 meaning of <code>%S</code> as proposed in <a
 href="https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p2945r0
 .html">P2945R0</a>. To be perfectly clear, this paper expresses no
-objection to adding syntax to specify precision to <code>%S</code>.
-This would not break any code.  The only objection is to changing the
-meaning of <code>%S</code> from representing seconds exactly, to
-representing only the integral part of seconds.
+objection to adding syntax to specify precision to <code>%S</code> as
+proposed in the <a
+href="https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p2945r0
+.html#less-preferred-proposal-wording">Less-Preferred Proposal
+Wording</a>. This would not break any code.  The only objection is to
+changing the meaning of <code>%S</code> from representing seconds
+exactly, to representing only the integral part of seconds as proposed
+in the <a
+href="https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p2945r0
+.html#preferred-proposal-wording">Preferred Proposal Wording</a>.
 </p>
 
 <a name="Bad"></a><h2>
@@ -48,17 +56,20 @@ <h2>Contents</h2>
 </h2>
 
 <p>
-The proper way to change a standard is to deprecate the old behavior,
-and provide new syntax for the new behavior.  Let both behaviors
-coexist for a few cycles, then remove the deprecated specification.
+The proper way to change existing behavior in a standard is to
+deprecate the existing behavior, and provide new syntax for the new
+behavior.  Let both behaviors coexist for a few cycles, then remove
+the deprecated specification.
 </p>
 <p>
 Doing otherwise risks introducing run-time errors to existing code by
 simply upgrading to a new version of C++.  Such run-time errors have
-the potential for raising safety and security issues.
+the potential for raising safety and security issues.  It also
+undermines the important claims about C++ being stable and standards
+being backwards compatible.
 </p>
 
-<a name="Existing"><h2>
+<a name="Existing"></a><h2>
 The <code>%S</code> flag as specified in the
 <code>&lt;chrono&gt;</code> library is existing code
 </h2>
@@ -78,7 +89,7 @@ <h2>Contents</h2>
 syntax and behavior in my date library.
 </p>
 
-<a name="Good"><h2>
+<a name="Good"></a><h2>
 <code>%S</code> is a good design
 </h2>
 
@@ -129,6 +140,25 @@ <h2>Contents</h2>
    using namespace std::chrono;
    return floor&lt;milliseconds&gt;(system_clock::now());
 }
+
+void
+foo()
+{
+    auto tp = GetCurrentTime();
+    // ...
+    // maybe do some arithmetic or conversions to local time here
+    // ...
+    // Formatted with milliseconds precision as specified back in the implementation of GetCurrentTime()
+    datafile << std::format("{:%FT%TZ}", tp);
+}
+
+void
+bar()
+{
+    decltype(GetCurrentTime()) tp;
+    // Same format string (minus the "{:}") to parse it back in
+    datafile >> std::chrono::parse("%FT%TZ", tp);
+}
 </pre></blockquote>
 
 <p>
@@ -139,17 +169,22 @@ <h2>Contents</h2>
 statements with their specification’s precision.  They can just ask
 for the time: <code>“%F %T”</code> (etc.).  And when their
 specification changes, there is no pain point.  Formatting and parsing
-<em>by default</em> automatically adjust.
+<em>by default</em> automatically adjust.  Change
+<code>milliseconds</code> to <code>seconds</code> in
+<code>GetCurrentTime()</code> and things just work, but now at
+seconds-precision.  Change <code>floor</code> to <code>ceil</code> or
+<code>round</code> to achieve alternative rounding modes from the
+OS-supplied precision.
 </p>
 
 <p>
 <code>&lt;chrono&gt;</code> does not (and should not) carry all of
 this respect for the client around and then when the client gets ready
 to create a logging statement suddenly say:  Oh, you probably want the
 precision a bunch of committee members decided upon.  No,
-<code>&lt;chrono&gt;</code> should give the client the precision he
-has already asked for (as the default, of course there should be a way
-to change it).
+<code>&lt;chrono&gt;</code> should give the client the precision they
+have already asked for (as the default, of course there should be a
+way to change it).
 </p>
 
 <p>
@@ -159,16 +194,68 @@ <h2>Contents</h2>
 parsed, and reads up to that amount of precision from the input
 stream.  A piece-wise redesign of <code>&lt;chrono&gt;</code> without
 an in-depth knowledge of the entire library is foolhardy at best.  And
-in this case also disruptive and dangerous.
+in this case is also disruptive and dangerous.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+<a
+href="https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p2945r0
+.html">P2945R0</a> questions why the current spec offers fractional
+seconds, but not fractional minutes or hours.  The answer<sup><a
+href="#ref1">1</a></sup> dates back to Egyptians who divided the day
+into 12 periods around B.C. 1500.  At that time no one cared enough
+about fractional hours to invent a system for them.  Hours were not
+divided into minutes until the first mechanical clocks that displayed
+minutes appeared near the end of the 16th century.  Minutes were
+defined as <sup>1</sup>/<sub>60</sub> of an hour based on the
+sexagesimal system developed by the Sumerians around 2000 B.C.  This
+was used many centuries later first to divide circles, and later to
+divide the round mechanical clock faces.  Minutes were subsequently
+divided using the sexagesimal system into seconds.  In the 1500s
+seconds were not displayed on the clock face but rather measured by
+swings of the pendulum.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+It was not until the late 19<sup><i>th</i></sup> or early
+20<sup><i>th</i></sup> century that technology advanced enough for
+people to even consider dividing seconds.  And at that time,
+civilization chose to use the base 10 system which had become well
+established. And this is why hours are divided by minutes, minutes by
+seconds, and seconds by powers of 10.  It is simply history.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Nevertheless, if someone really wants fractional hours, that is certainly doable:
+</p>
+
+<blockquote><pre>
+duration&lt;double, hours::period&gt; d = ...
+cout &lt;&lt; format("{:.4}, d) &lt;&lt; '\n';
+</pre></blockquote>
+
+<p>
+Finally <code>%S</code> does not need to have identical functionality
+to other languages as argued by <a
+href="https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p2945r0
+.html">P2945R0</a>. There are many ways in which
+<code>&lt;chrono&gt;</code> differs from other date time libraries. 
+These differences are what makes the <code>&lt;chrono&gt;</code>
+solution superior, in safety, functionality and performance.
 </p>
 
+<a name="Acknowledgments"></a><h2>Acknowledgments</h2>
+
 <p>
-<code>%S</code> does not need to have identical functionality to other
-languages. There are many ways in which <code>&lt;chrono&gt;</code>
-differs from other date time libraries.  These differences are what
-makes the <code>&lt;chrono&gt;</code> solution superior, in
-safety, functionality and performance.
+Thank you to Tomasz Kamiński, Stephan T. Lavavej, Bjarne Stroustrup,
+David Vandevoorde, and Ville Voutilainen for the corrections,
+suggestions and comments.  This paper improved from its original draft
+because of your generously donated time and attention.
 </p>
 
+<a name="References"></a><h2>References</h2>
+
+<a name="ref1"><sup>1</sup> <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-time-division-days-hours-minutes/">Why is a minute divided into 60 seconds, an hour into 60 minutes, yet there are only 24 hours in a day?</a>
+
 </body>
 </html>