W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2014

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: Event.creationTime

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 23:35:30 -0700
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Message-ID: <20140507063530.GA25180@crum.dbaron.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:20 UTC