On Mar 31, 2013 3:42 AM, "Daniel Stone" <<a href="mailto:daniel@fooishbar.org">daniel@fooishbar.org</a>> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 30 March 2013 22:37, Jason Ekstrand <<a href="mailto:jason@jlekstrand.net">jason@jlekstrand.net</a>> wrote: >> >> I think this should be re-worded. It's correct, it just seems >> awkward. For example: >> >> Input events also carry timestamps in milliseconds. The base for >> these timestamps is left up to the compositor. Therefore, they should >> not be compared against anything except other compositor-provided >> timestamps. > > > I think 'unspecified' provides a little more clarity than 'left up to the compositor', but that really is bikeshedding. :) > > Even then though, I think you're guaranteeing too much: I'm not sure we even currently guarantee that timestamps are comparable across all compositor interfaces. They certainly have to be comparable per-interface, but that's it I think. Kristian? If the timestamps should be comparable cross interfaces we wouldn't be able to use high precision time stamps from page flips and similar time sources as they are not guaranteed to have the same root as the ones from for example evdev. Jonas > > Cheers, > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > wayland-devel mailing list > <a href="mailto:wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a> > <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel</a> >