- From: François Daoust via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:44:29 +0000
- To: public-webtiming@w3.org
This time, I think you have managed to convince me that your proposal is better! ;) It looks good, would indeed avoid the double clock-sync process, and would actually simplify the work for the timing provider! I don't think that we should add a "skewchange" event on the TimingObject interface today, unless you have a specific use case in mind that would require it. It may not mean much, in the sense that the smoothing effect could mean that the skew reported by the timing provider may not exactly match the skew of the timing object's software clock. -- GitHub Notif of comment by tidoust See https://github.com/webtiming/timingobject/issues/16#issuecomment-134590673
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2015 13:44:31 UTC