OK, fine. We can do this here. *Implementors should be aware that this specification is not*
*stable. Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions* *are likely to find the specification changing out from under them* *in incompatible ways. Vendors interested in implementing this * *specification should join the aforementioned mailing lists and * *take part in the discussions. * Strangely, I find the same text in the working draft for localStorage as well. A year ago, we looked at all of this and needed HTML5 offline storage. SQL support for HTML5 has been in the spec at *LEAST* since 2008. You suggestion is to say, "well, let's wait to see when all this becomes final." Good luck in the real world with that. *The specification reached an impasse: all interested * *implementors have used the same SQL backend (Sqlite), but * *we need multiple independent implementations to proceed * *along a standardisation path.* Can you tell me what *this* is supposed to mean? Specifications don't reach impasses, PEOPLE do. We can't standardize because everyone is using the same thing? Huh?? How is this an impasse? And even if it is, is it worth kicking the legs out from under anyone using it? To me, this smacks of perhaps a handful of elitist folks who don't really give a crap about the guys in the trenches. And yeah, perhaps brainless wasn't fair. I'm sure they're all really smart guys who weren't looking for a solution as much as vindication for their particular point of view -- if they couldn't have it their way, then by god, they'd stop it in their tracks. They should run for Congress. *As well as suggesting alternative technologies: * * * *| The Web Applications Working Group continues work on * *| two other storage-related specifications: Web Storage * *| and Indexed Database API.* This isn't a suggestion for an alternative technology. I don't even know *WHAT* it's supposed to be. Pardon me, but isn't the exact same paragraph you cited FIRST in your response, embedded in that document as well? You're suggesting that THEY'RE suggesting the less-mature spec is the way to go?? And how is EITHER of these an alternative to a relational database? Oh, that's right. We're taking the "I sure hope someone builds something" approach. And I forgive you for not listening--honestly, I'm more pissed at that section of the working group than their defenders. Scott. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "iPhoneWebDev" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/iphonewebdev/-/jJchx2KKpP0J. To post to this group, send email to iphonewebdev@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to iphonewebdev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/iphonewebdev?hl=en.
