- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 17:19:11 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22824 --- Comment #10 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> --- (In reply to comment #6) > So how are you handling `input.valueAsDate.setFullYear(1998)`? It doesn't do anything useful (the returned Date is changed then GC'ed). (In reply to comment #7) > Hixie, if you disagree with the conclusion about Dates I would suggest > jumping in on the thread on es-discuss. As things stand I'm inclined to go > with TC39s consensus. It's not clear to me why that's the right forum for talking about an HTML spec feature. (In reply to comment #8) > startDate is an attribute of media elements, not a method—correct? It changed to a method recently. > ------------------------------- > Time and/or timestamps represented as milliseconds since epoch, in the form > of a number, is useful for: > 1. calculating time differences with math (without coercing the object into > a milliseconds number) > 2. creating new Date objects if such a thing is necessary for the program > 3. being the value of a property on a frozen object > 4. being the value of a property who's descriptor is {[[Writable]]: false, > [[Enumerable]]: false, [[Configurable]]: false} > ------------------------------- > > > My list and your list > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22714#c13 share a lot of > overlap (Not coincidentally, I read your e-mail while writing that comment.) > however my #3 and #4 trump the pros for Date object. I don't understand how your #3 and #4 are relevant. They seem like theoretical purity, which is the least important consideration in what we often call the "priority of constituencies" (users > authors > spec writers > theory). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2013 17:19:13 UTC