RE: [HighResTime] Web Worker support

It looks good to me. I also updated the definition of time origin to reference the creation time step in the Web Workers processing model and reference the HTML5 definition of navigate.

From: James Simonsen <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 6:12 PM
To: Jatinder Mann
Subject: Re: [HighResTime] Web Worker support

Spec has been updated. Let me know if you have any comments.


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Jatinder Mann <<>> wrote:
That sounds good.

From: James Simonsen [<>]
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 11:36 AM
To: Jatinder Mann
Cc: James Robinson;<>

Subject: Re: [HighResTime] Web Worker support

I think we'd just add a new field named creationTime to the SharedWorker interface. It'd be defined as the difference between the shared worker's initial construction time and navigationStart.

I can put something in the spec if this sounds ok.


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Jatinder Mann <<>> wrote:
This sounds like a good idea. How do you propose we expose this data in the parent page? Especially interested in the scenario where the parent page is communicating with multiple shared workers.


From: James Simonsen [<>]
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 4:50 PM
To: James Robinson
Cc: Jatinder Mann;<>

Subject: Re: [HighResTime] Web Worker support

That works for me.

We should probably call out that it could be negative if the shared worker was started before this instance of the page loaded.


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:45 PM, James Robinson <<>> wrote:
If the use case is to correlate times within a worker to that in a parent page, why not expose the worker creation time in the parent page's epoch to the parent?  This would be the difference in epochs between the parent and worker page's times.  The parent could postMessage() this to a child or to other pages if it liked.

- James

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Jatinder Mann <<>> wrote:
To avoid the privacy issue, seems like we may need to go with a new epoch. However, wouldn’t using a new epoch still suffer from the issue of the clock being adjusted while the application is running?

I don’t have any concerns with using January 01 2013 as a new epoch (better than the suggestion to use someone’s birthday ;)

From: James Simonsen [<>]
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:02 PM

Subject: Re: [HighResTime] Web Worker support

So is the best solution to just pick a new epoch that's relatively recent? Like 1/1/2013?


On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 6:37 PM, James Robinson <<>> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Jatinder Mann <<>> wrote:

Adding originTime to the, gives you a time value that is comparable in either context. This assumes that we have enough bits in a double to describe time since Jan 01 1970 in milliseconds in microsecond resolution.

There have been a bit more than 2^40s microseconds since the unix epoch.  A double has 53 bits of mantissa so I think we're safe for a while.  A problem here is that the unix epoch is not at a fixed point relative to the monotonic clock.  Remember that the monotonic clock is monotonic is monotonic in terms of itself.  The computer that the application is running on may have its clock adjusted forwards or backwards while the app is running and in practice this happens surprisingly frequently.  This does not impact the monotonic clock, but it does change the delta to the unix epoch.  That's why *has* to use a timebase different from the unix epoch.  What do you propose we do in this case?

Alternatively, we can define the origin for originTime to be the launch of the browser.

Defining the time to be relative to launch of browser allows identifying that browser session across multiple sites and visits by comparing the time to  That'd be a really bad idea.

- James

Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 15:10:26 UTC