- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:28:58 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Robin Berjon wrote: > > On Mar 27, 2006, at 22:35, Ian Hickson wrote: > > I propose we define DOMTimeStamp in ECMAScript as being a Number giving > > the number of milliseconds, excluding those in leap seconds, since > > 1970-01-01T00:00:00.0Z. > > Apart from the fact that Safari uses this, do we have to stick to the > Unix epoch? I know it's classic and all, but I wouldn't expect events to > occur in the past, so that's 36 years' worth of milliseconds gone to > waste (over 10^12). Would there be a big issue starting with, say, > 2000-01-01T00:00:00.0Z (or even 2006)? Don't change things unless you have to. There's nothing wrong with 1970-01-01T00:00:00.0Z. In 50 years it won't make the slightest difference whether we started in 1970-01-01T00:00:00.0Z or in 2000-01-01T00:00:00.0Z, and in the meantime it will make it slightly easier to implement. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2006 08:29:08 UTC