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"  to "double" , 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  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  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)