W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > March 2006

Re: timeStamp and DOMTimeStamp

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 04:22:46 +0000 (UTC)
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0603280418070.315@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Ian Hickson wrote:
> >I propose we define DOMTimeStamp in ECMAScript as being a Number giving 
> >the number of milliseconds, excluding those in leap seconds, since 
> >1970-01-01T00:00:00.0Z.
> While the current text isn't particularily clear, my reading is that 
> implementations should determine some "epoch" time and set the time- 
> Stamp relative to it for all events. This may but need not be the time 
> you suggest, the system start time is given as another example.
> I think this is sensible since the implementation does not necessarily 
> have access to the current time or might not want to make it available 
> to applications due to security concerns. When applications do have 
> access to this information, they can easily derive it from a timeStamp 
> by comparing two of them with a given time.

Well I don't really mind what esoteric implementations might do, but, as 
discussed on today's telecon, for Web browsers we want interoperability.

> Is there a specific reason why you think this should be relative to this 
> specific time?

Time stamps should be of comparable magnitude with comparable deltas 
across different Web browsers, IMHO. Every difference between browsers 
introduces a new possibility for a Web page bug. Web authors manage to 
find plenty of ways to shoot themselves in the foot already, there's no 
reason for us to give them even more ways.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2006 04:22:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:20 UTC