- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:25:48 -0800
- To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapi@w3.org
On Mar 28, 2006, at 12:26 AM, 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)? ECMAScript dates are in milliseconds from the epoch, so making this incompatible would make things a pain if you want to format the timestamp as a date. Also, the millisecond time range addressable by double is 285,616 years in each direction, I doubt 36 extra years will make a difference. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2006 21:29:12 UTC