Hi, Folks-
Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 6/25/09 7:20 PM):
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
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.
Art, Chaals, Mike, and I discussed this yesterday, and we agreed that
this seems like the best solution. Like the Widgets work, a deliverable
doesn't necessarily have to be in a single spec, so we believe there is
sufficient justification for this in the charter.
The plan of record would be to split out the SQL Storage section into
its own spec, with an alternate spec edited by Nikunj, and to publish an
updated draft of Web Storage that points to both those other drafts.
This way, all parts of the web storage deliverable are put on a level
playing field to be judged on their individual merits, and subject to
being edited and updated individually.
Nikunj, would this suit you? Does anyone else have any thoughts?
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
