Can we just change timeStamp to be a DOMHighResTimeStamp rather than
introducing a redundant property?
Adam
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Brian Birtles bbirt...@mozilla.com wrote:
Hi,
Gecko's implementation of Event.timeStamp does not conform to the spec[1]
since it reports the number
On 5/7/14, 1:51 AM, Brian Birtles wrote:
This time is measured from navigationStart
It's probably better to say that it's measured from the same 0 point as
performance.now(), since there is no navigationStart in workers but
there are events there.
-Boris
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:
[ resending this message, originally dated Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014
11:42:10 -0700, since I just noticed it didn't make it through to
the list due to the list's content-type filters rejecting signed
messages ]
On Tuesday 2014-04-29 17:55 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Tab
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Adam Barth w...@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
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Joshua Cranmer pidgeo...@verizon.net wrote:
One thing I've noticed is that the specification currently aggressively
fails IPv6 address matching, so, e.g., new URL(http://[::1::];) would fail.
Yes. That is based on what RFC 3986 did and browsers implemented.
On 5/7/14, 6:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Is there a good reference somewhere for what the time would be relative to?
https://w3c.github.io/web-performance/specs/HighResolutionTime2/Overview.html#sec-time-origin
seems like the right thing.
-Boris
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
Can we just change timeStamp to be a DOMHighResTimeStamp rather than
introducing a redundant property?
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
It seems worth experimenting with. If the experiment fails, we can try
another approach.
Fair enough, once it succeeds I'll update the specification.
--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 5/7/14, 6:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Is there a good reference somewhere for what the time would be relative
to?
https://w3c.github.io/web-performance/specs/HighResolutionTime2/Overview.
html#sec-time-origin
10 matches
Mail list logo
