W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2013

[Bug 22824] Remove Date from WebIDL

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 17:19:11 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-22824-3890-0FIsKPzN5l@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22824

--- Comment #10 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> So how are you handling `input.valueAsDate.setFullYear(1998)`?

It doesn't do anything useful (the returned Date is changed then GC'ed).


(In reply to comment #7)
> Hixie, if you disagree with the conclusion about Dates I would suggest
> jumping in on the thread on es-discuss. As things stand I'm inclined to go
> with TC39s consensus.

It's not clear to me why that's the right forum for talking about an HTML spec
feature.

(In reply to comment #8)
> startDate is an attribute of media elements, not a method—correct?

It changed to a method recently.


> -------------------------------
> Time and/or timestamps represented as milliseconds since epoch, in the form
> of a number, is useful for:
> 1. calculating time differences with math (without coercing the object into
> a milliseconds number)
> 2. creating new Date objects if such a thing is necessary for the program
> 3. being the value of a property on a frozen object
> 4. being the value of a property who's descriptor is {[[Writable]]: false,
> [[Enumerable]]: false, [[Configurable]]: false}
> -------------------------------
> 
> 
> My list and your list
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22714#c13 share a lot of
> overlap

(Not coincidentally, I read your e-mail while writing that comment.)


> however my #3 and #4 trump the pros for Date object.

I don't understand how your #3 and #4 are relevant. They seem like theoretical
purity, which is the least important consideration in what we often call the
"priority of constituencies" (users > authors > spec writers > theory).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 17:19:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:50 UTC