Stephen Turner wrote:
>On Fri, 12 May 2000, Aengus Lawlor wrote:
>>
>> I remember discussing whether "Time taken" is recorded in milliseconds
>> or seconds, and deciding that Microsoft was technically incorrect in
>> using milliseconds, but from a practical point of view, that
>> milliseconds made a lot more sense than seconds. Are there other
>> differences?
>
>Of course milliseconds is a much more sensible granularity, but the W3 spec
>allows decimals so they should use 1.234 s not 1234 ms. Yes, there are other
>differences -- see the analog docs for a list.
To be fair, it's a Working Draft, not a spec. To quote the draft at
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-logfile.html
It is inappropriate to use W3C Working Drafts as reference material or
to cite them as other than "work in progress".
It's a pity Microsoft didn't document why the ignored the draft (the use
of milliseconds and URL-encoding are improvements, in my opinion). It
might have triggered a move to finally upgrade the 4 year old draft to a
standard.
By the way, I remeber the question being asked when this came up before,
but I don't remember the answer. Does Apache log Time Taken in
milliseconds?
Aengus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe" in the main BODY OF THE MESSAGE.
List archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
