Hi, Folks-
I discussed this a bit with Nikunj offline, in the context of the
charter wording. He and I both agreed that the scope of the charter was
too narrow (that was my fault; I changed the wording to reflect the
abstract of the current Web Storage spec, and I probably shouldn't
have), but we also agreed that the spec itself is higher profile and
more important than the wording in the charter.
Jonas and others seem to support broadening the scope, and I've also
been reading various posts in the blogosphere that also question whether
SQL is the right choice (I see a lot of support for JSON-based
approaches). At the very least, I think this group should discuss this
more before committing to any one solution. I note that Ian was already
open to an early spec revision on the same lines, so I hope this isn't
controversial.
Rather than change the charter (which would require everyone who's
already rejoined to re-rejoin at the simplest, and might require another
AC review at the worst), Nikunj offered that he would be satisfied if
more generic wording were put in the charter, and highlighted as an
issue. I would propose something like, "This specification currently
contains wording specific to a SQL or name-value pair storage solution,
but the WebApps WG is discussing other structured storage alternatives
that may better match the use cases and requirements." I leave it up to
Nikunj to provide wording that would satisfy him.
If this is acceptable to the WG as a whole, I would ask that a message
similar to the above be put in a prominent place in the spec. This
seems like the soundest way forward.
Art, Chaals, care to chime in? Other comments on this matter?
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Jonas Sicking wrote (on 4/21/09 6:22 PM):
Hmm.. I tend to agree. Using an SQL database is only one possible
solution that we should be examining. I would rather say that we
should provide storage for structured data inside the UA. I'm not a
fan of calling out neither SQL or name-value pair storage.
At the same time I'm not sure that I care that much about it, as long
as we can change the draft later in case the spec takes a different
turn than the current drafts.
/ Jonas
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Nikunj Mehta<nikunj.me...@oracle.com> wrote:
Apparently the new charter [1] that forces everyone to re-join the WG also
lists among its deliverables as WebStorage with the explanation that
WebStorage is
"two APIs for client-side data storage in Web applications: a name-value
pair system, and a database system with a SQL frontend"
Clearly, if the WD of WebStorage has in its abstract something more general,
the charter should not be so specific.
I now understand that this new piece of text made its way into the charter
recently. The last message I can see about charter change for WebApps [1]
only talks about adding WebWorkers. Apparently other changes were also made,
but no diff provided to members about the charter change proposal.
Can you throw some light on this?
Nikunj
[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/webapps-charter
[2] http://www.w3.org/mid/3e428ec7-1960-4ece-b403-827ba47fe...@nokia.comian
Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
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.
Done.
