- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 08:34:49 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Robert Flack <flackr@chromium.org>, Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: > > Can we just change timeStamp to be a DOMHighResTimeStamp rather than > > introducing a redundant property? > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2012OctDec/thread.html#msg8 > is the previous thread on this topic. In that thread bz pointed out > that changing Date.now() to return sub-milliseconds as an experiment > failed. > > If people want to do the experiment for Event.prototype.timeStamp I'd > be happy with that. > It seems worth experimenting with. If the experiment fails, we can try another approach. Adam Is there a good reference somewhere for what the time would be relative to? > > (I previously had a problem with doing this in DOM as it would depend > on page load time which is defined by HTML, but I have since accepted > that HTML and DOM are intertwined.) > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ >
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2014 15:35:49 UTC