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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:06 UTC