On Jun 24, 2009, at 10:24 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Nikunj-
I think Mike was overly blunt, but essentially correct in his
response, but I'd like to add a specific comment inline...
Nikunj R. Mehta wrote (on 6/24/09 8:13 PM):
On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
The Web Storage specification is someone dead-locked right now due
to the
lack of consensus on whether to use SQL or not.
<snip>
As Kyle Weems put it: Deny, Delay, Too Late.
<snip>
I would endorse you, Nikunj, to edit the Web Storage spec to include
your proposal. However, I will also say that the burden of proving
that your solution is better lies on you. I'm not going to pretend
this is not an uphill battle. If you or someone on the Oracle team
wants to demonstrate an implementation of your proposal, or even
better, contribute that code to the WebKit or Mozilla codebase, that
would be a compelling way of demonstrating relative merits...
cutting-edge authors could experiment with both and provide feedback
about what aspects of each they prefer. That would be an effective
argument in favor of one or the other.
You bet.
I will say that Hixie's proposal (which, if I understand it, comes
from Apple's implementation) has an advantage, because he has been
working within W3C and directly with browser vendors for a while; he
knows how to write specifications in the style that implementers
prefer, and he also has their respect on technical matters. You
would do well to specify your proposal in a manner similar to his,
with similar detail, and to cultivate credibility and relationships
with browser vendors if you want to gain preference for your
proposal. I'm sorry this is not the most encouraging statement, but
I believe it is factual, and it is intended as helpful advice.
No worries.
