Hi Art,
Oracle conditionally supports the publishing this draft as FPWD
provided that the abstract is worded appropriately. The reason to
clarify the abstract is so that the WG doesn't build an implicit
expectation that it will /only/ produce a SQL-based API in Web Storage.
Here's what Oracle would like to see in the abstract:
This specification defines two APIs for persistent data storage in Web
clients: one for accessing key-value pair data and another for
accessing structured data.
Some developers around the world have assumed, without justification,
that SQL is /the/ model of data access that will be supported inside
the browser, e.g., Maciej expressing an expectation about SQLite [1].
This is because of the history of this draft and I hope we can do
something to temper that expectation at an early enough stage.
Nikunj
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0133.html
On Apr 10, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Nikunj,
On Apr 10, 2009, at 10:42 AM, ext Nikunj Mehta wrote:
Oracle does not support the substance of the current Web Storage
draft
[1][2][3]. This is a path-breaking change to the Web applications
platform and rushing such a major change without substantive
consideration of alternatives is not in its own best interest. Oracle
does not see it fit to advance the current draft along the
recommendation track
Still, we believe that the working group will benefit greatly from
the
wide review of this draft. Has the chair exhausted all such
alternatives such as Working Group Note? At the very least the status
needs to be clear about the purpose of publishing the document. A
boilerplate status is not appropriate since there are important
concerns about the technique used for structured storage in the
draft.
I agree it would be good to get broad review of the proposed FPWD
and the formal publication will trigger a related note on both
w3.org and the weekly Public newsletter.
Please note there is certainly a precedence for a WG to not have
unanimous agreement regarding the entire "substance" of a FPWD.
Regarding a WG Note, that doesn't seem appropriate in this case
since the WG's plan of record (Charter) is to create a
Recommendation for this spec.
-Regards, Art Barstow
Nikunj Mehta
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0131.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0136.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0137.html
On Apr 2, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public
Working Draft of the specs below.
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and
encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline
for comments is April 10.
-Regards, Art Barstow
Begin forwarded message:
From: ext Ian Hickson <[email protected]>
Date: April 1, 2009 6:22:40 PM EDT
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Request for FPWD publication of Server-Sent Events, Web
Sockets API, Web Storage, and Web Workers
Archived-At:
<http://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected]
The following drafts are relatively stable and would benefit
greatly from
wider review:
Server-Sent Events
http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
The Web Sockets API
http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
Web Storage
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
Web Workers
http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/
Assuming there is consensus in the working group to do so, could we
publish these as First Public Working Drafts?
Cheers,
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )
\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _
\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--
(,_..'`-.;.'
