TimezonedDate
On Apr 21, 2010, at 22:49 , Garrett Smith wrote:
Moving this discussion to the (hopefully) non-censored es-discuss.
Hmmm, why? public-script-coord isn't censored, and is an appropriate location for this discussion. Not that I mind where solutions comes from.
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Robin Berjon <robin at berjon.com> wrote:
the DAP WG has a use case (calendars) in which it is needed for date objects to keep their timezone information around, but the ES Date object doesn't. We're looking at options to address this issue:
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Apr/0051.html
WebIDL is still going? I thought that had died.
Why would it die? It rocks, and it's used extensively.
Regardless, WebIDL defining Date would be inappropriate. A TimezonedDate extending Date requires a definition of Date.
WebIDL is adding a native Date type that would map to ES Date so we wouldn't have to define anything.
Moving this discussion to the (hopefully) non-censored es-discuss.
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Robin Berjon <robin at berjon.com> wrote:
WebIDL is still going? I thought that had died.
Regardless, WebIDL defining Date would be inappropriate. A TimezonedDate extending Date requires a definition of Date.
| interface TimezonedDate : Date { | attribute DOMString? tz; | }; ^?
Moving this discussion to the (hopefully) non-censored es-discuss. On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Robin Berjon <robin at berjon.com> wrote: > Hi, > > the DAP WG has a use case (calendars) in which it is needed for date objects to keep their timezone information around, but the ES Date object doesn't. We're looking at options to address this issue: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2010Apr/0051.html WebIDL is still going? I thought that had died. Regardless, WebIDL defining Date would be inappropriate. A TimezonedDate extending Date requires a definition of Date. | interface TimezonedDate : Date { | attribute DOMString? tz; | }; ^?