On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
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.
To be precise, I suggested that we can table the charter issue for
now, and emphasize in the spec that we haven't finalized SQL as the
only structured storage access solution. Preferably, the current
Section 4 would be renamed as
[[
Structured Storage
]]
with the following wording in it:
[[
The working group is currently debating whether SQL is the right
abstraction for structured storage.
]]
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<[email protected]> 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/[email protected]
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.
