- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 12:31:26 -0500
- 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 UTC