On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
In any case, adding a new feature to a spec whose future is uncertain
isn't a good idea because it means that the new feature's progress
is tied
to the uncertain future of the rest of the spec. Thus, my
recommendation
to Nikunj would be to create a new WG deliverable, not one tied to the
fate of the SQL Database section.
[...]
I think Nikunj's proposal definitely is worthy of being persued,
just like
the working group is persuing dozens of other proposals like XHR,
CORS,
Selectors API, Workers, Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets, etc. I don't
believe it really fits into the Web Storage spec (if anything, I
think we
should split Web Storage into two further specs, not add a third
wholly
independent feature to it). However, I would definitely support an
FPWD
publication of Nikunj's proposal, as I have for other proposals.
I strongly agree on these points. I would prefer to see SQL Storage
split out of the rest of Web Storage. We seem to have rough consensus
and strong multilateral implementor interest on LocalStorage and
SessionStorage, and they should be allowed to move forward on the
standards track quickly. SQL Storage remains contentious, and only
Apple and Google have shown strong implementor interest so far. And it
has no technical tie to the other storage drafts. I also think
Nikunj's proposal should be yet a third separate orthogonal draft.
Regards,
Maciej
