[Bug 23853] Please clarify the interpretation of the WebIDL undefined Date in the File constructor
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23853 Arun a...@mozilla.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #35 from Arun a...@mozilla.com --- I think we can safely close this bug, having left it open for further info. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 23853] Please clarify the interpretation of the WebIDL undefined Date in the File constructor
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23853 Arun a...@mozilla.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED |--- --- Comment #25 from Arun a...@mozilla.com --- Glenn: I've decided to re-open this bug (per Comment 19 and further) and I apologize if you feel that it was rushed through without discussion. It didn't seem that big a leap (based on the es-discuss thread) to phase out a Date-based property, but on that account I could be wrong. I am very interested in information from implementers about lastModifiedDate, and whether they are comfortable about deprecating it in favor of the proposed lastModified which will have an integer type, not a Date object type. If it cannot be removed or safely deprecated, then it should stay in the spec. And by stay in the spec I think there will be now be two properties, since I don't think Date serves us as a readonly property, and having an integer alternative *that can rely on the Date API* for syntactic convenience isn't a bad trade-off. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Re: [Bug 23853] Please clarify the interpretation of the WebIDL undefined Date in the File constructor
What's the purpose of the integer in the lastModified attribute? Epoch time in (mili)seconds? 2013/11/28 bugzi...@jessica.w3.org: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23853 Arun a...@mozilla.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED |--- --- Comment #25 from Arun a...@mozilla.com --- Glenn: I've decided to re-open this bug (per Comment 19 and further) and I apologize if you feel that it was rushed through without discussion. It didn't seem that big a leap (based on the es-discuss thread) to phase out a Date-based property, but on that account I could be wrong. I am very interested in information from implementers about lastModifiedDate, and whether they are comfortable about deprecating it in favor of the proposed lastModified which will have an integer type, not a Date object type. If it cannot be removed or safely deprecated, then it should stay in the spec. And by stay in the spec I think there will be now be two properties, since I don't think Date serves us as a readonly property, and having an integer alternative *that can rely on the Date API* for syntactic convenience isn't a bad trade-off. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo Unix. – Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux
[Bug 23853] Please clarify the interpretation of the WebIDL undefined Date in the File constructor
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23853 Arun a...@mozilla.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #18 from Arun a...@mozilla.com --- Marking this fixed: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#file-constructor (It's also fixed in the WebIDL: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#file and in the attribute definitions: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#file-attrs). This is probably the last open bug before RC, so anyone with time to give the draft a once-over is encouraged to do so. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
