That's better ! Thanks Andrei That closes my initial remarks Regards, Mohamed On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:06:27 +0200, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Keeping it milliseconds matches the timestamp of the mouse event: > >> > >> timeStamp of type DOMTimeStamp, readonly > >> Used to specify the time (in milliseconds relative to the epoch) at > >> which the event was created. Due to the fact that some systems may not > >> provide this information the value of timeStamp may be not available for > all > >> events. When not available, a value of 0 will be returned. Examples of > epoch > >> time are the time of the system start or 0:0:0 UTC 1st January 1970. > >> > >> I think we should be consistent here. > > > > That's fine, but that would still require changing the specification as > it > > doesn't use DOMTimeStamp currently. > > > > I agree, thanks for pointing this out. I've updated the spec to use > DOMTimeStamp (and also fixed a few typos at the same time). > > Also, please note that xs:dateTime is not really relevant here since > it is an XML Schema data type. About the DOMTimeStamp type, the DOM 3 > Core spec [1] says : > > "For ECMAScript, DOMTimeStamp is bound to the Date type" > > I think the Date type is sophisticated enough for our purposes? > > Thanks, > Andrei > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/core.html#Core-DOMTimeStamp > -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 14:15:31 UTC