Jonas Sicking wrote:
> And then there is the thread started at [3], and this particular email
> [4] which seems to conclude that Date objects in fact are just
> timestamps, and not timezone+timestamp.
>
> [3]https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-February/028847.html
> [4]https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-February/028857.html

First, this is not well-specified and implementations do extract Date 
"fields" from time number based on current timezone and DST offset 
(which can change).

Second, a Date is a pretty fat and inefficient way to represent a time 
number. Let the consumer decide whether to create a new object. Some web 
specs get this right.

/be

Jonas Sicking wrote:
> And then there is the thread started at [3], and this particular email
> [4] which seems to conclude that Date objects in fact are just
> timestamps, and not timezone+timestamp.
>
> [3]: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-February/028847.html
> [4]: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-February/028857.html

First, this is not well-specified and implementations do extract Date 
"fields" from time number based on current timezone and DST offset 
(which can change).

Second, a Date is a pretty fat and inefficient way to represent a time 
number. Let the consumer decide whether to create a new object. Some web 
specs get this right.