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:

I'm not sure if there would be compatibility problems from changing
from "unsigned long long" [1] to "double" [2], 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,


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/events.html#Events-Event
[2] 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)

Reply via email to