3 ms·
Nah. The notion of a "time since arbitrary epoch" is pretty universal, even though it may have a variety of representations. Just pick one, it really doesn't ma
by stickfigure 6y ago
Nah. The notion of a "time since arbitrary epoch" is pretty universal, even though it may have a variety of representations. Just pick one, it really doesn't matter which.
Actually JavaScript already did pick a representation - milliseconds since 1970. It would be easy and unambiguous to add { "foo": T1606410158672 } to the grammar.
- ben509 6y agoAnd I think nobody does that in a protocol because you're adding extra complexity to get you little more than transmitting a number.
- dmitriid 6y agoYou get significantly more than transmitting a number. - You get automatic conversion to/from a known datatype, Timestamp, not to an arbitrary number - You get automatic checks on the validity of this datatype - You can specify exact precision of this datatype (for example, you may want to represent nanoseconds, not milliseconds, since epoch)