On Mar 28, 2006, at 12:26 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: > > On Mar 27, 2006, at 22:35, 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. > > Apart from the fact that Safari uses this, do we have to stick to > the Unix epoch? I know it's classic and all, but I wouldn't expect > events to occur in the past, so that's 36 years' worth of > milliseconds gone to waste (over 10^12). Would there be a big issue > starting with, say, 2000-01-01T00:00:00.0Z (or even 2006)? ECMAScript dates are in milliseconds from the epoch, so making this incompatible would make things a pain if you want to format the timestamp as a date. Also, the millisecond time range addressable by double is 285,616 years in each direction, I doubt 36 extra years will make a difference. Regards, MaciejReceived on Tuesday, 28 March 2006 21:29:12 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:54 GMT