On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote: >> Event.timeStamp was >> supposed to be a Date object too: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/ecma-script-binding.html Not >> sure why it was not implemented that way. > > I don't fully understand the point your trying to make, are you telling me > that these: > > - http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#event > - http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-event-timestamp > > ...Are not correct?
I merely tried to illustrate we were not the first to consider using Date for these things. At least on the non-TC39 side, Event.timeStamp not being Date is seen as not that great. Now this point-of-view might be horribly mistaken, but it exists. Should be easy to do the way Brendan outlined for anything new though. Also, I very much appreciate your feedback (and I'm not the boss), I just don't always grasp it right away ;-) Give these miscommunications some time, eventually this web platform thing will be better for it. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
