- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 23:35:30 -0700
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
On Tuesday 2014-05-06 23:00 -0700, Adam Barth wrote:
> Can we just change timeStamp to be a DOMHighResTimeStamp rather than
> introducing a redundant property?
I'd certainly be happy to see such a change; I argued that
Event.timeStamp be based on a monotonic clock previously, in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2010OctDec/0071.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2012JulSep/0098.html
I'm not sure if there would be compatibility problems from changing
from "unsigned long long" [1] to "double" [2], though. The type
change seems like the biggest compatibility risk in content that
works today across browsers, given that browsers on whether the time
is epoch-based or monotonic.
I don't have any data on how or how often Event.timeStamp is used,
though.
-David
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/events.html#Events-Event
http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Core/core.html#Core-DOMTimeStamp
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/hr-time/#sec-DOMHighResTimeStamp
--
𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2014 06:35:57 UTC