W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Time in DOM 2 Events

From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:31:26 -0500
Message-ID: <3895C6EE.4E35C0B2@reutershealth.com>
To: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>, www-dom@w3.org
David Brownell wrote:
 
> However, if there's an issue with that "start of epoch" date, it
> may be OK to have it be unspecified ... since the motivation is
> to detect relative times.  Individual hosting environments would
> specify their start-of-epoch date.
> 
> A 64-bit millisecond timestamp seems the right model to me.  Apps
> won't have to worry about it rolling over, yet the events (UI only!)
> will be easily distinguished.

Okay provided the start-of-epoch *is* put into the Java binding section.
It would be senseless to have some Java DOMs do the obvious
Right Thing, but nobody be able to rely on it across DOMs.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis vom dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Received on Monday, 31 January 2000 12:32:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:47 GMT