On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:54 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I don't think the Web Storage draft (I assume by this you mean the remaining draft that would define LocalStorage and SessionStorage) needs to link to either of the other drafts.
It is customary, when something is split out of a draft, to link to it so that people can find it using their old bookmarks. I think that's all that Doug meant here — not linking in the normative sense.
I should add that I still think SQL Storage is a good technical solution to the problem of structured client-side storage. Web developers who are specifically targeting mobile devices, or in particular iPhone, have given extremely positive feedback about both LocalStorage and SQL Storage, as well as the HTML5 Application Cache. On general-purpose Web sites, of course, uptake is limited by the lack of other implementations so far. But Web developers seem positive about it as a technology, based on feedback from presentations. All of this makes me doubt that a fundamentally different model for structured storage is needed or would be significantly better.
Well, the advantage of SQL is that developers know it, and have been wanting something like that on the client for ages (I know I have). There are non-negligible issues however in defining it interoperably. Also, I think there's a possibility that it's popular with developers simply because it's the only option. That's why ideally I'd like to give us the leeway to experiment a little around various options before committing completely to SQL.
-- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
