On Nov 9, 2009, at 09:58 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Indeed. I still personally wouldn't call it multiple independent
implementations though.
Would you call multiple implementations that use the standard C
library independent? Obviously there's a judgment call to be made
here. I realize that in this case a database implementation is a
pretty key piece of the problem.
At the very least I would expect the CR-exit criteria to require two
interoperable implementations of the specification made using
different SQL back-ends. Otherwise this would be like implementing
something in Gecko and counting Firefox, XulRunner, Seamonkey, etc. as
independent implementations.
But I also think it would be more fruitful for you to promote
solutions you do like, than to try to find lawyerly reasons to stop
the advancement of specs you don't (when the later have been
implemented and shipped and likely will see more implementations).
I personally am not trying to be lawyery about this, but I think it's
only fair to request that this specification be done at the level we
expect from others. I therefore don't see much of a point in going to
LC without the SQL dialect being specified — it's not a finished spec.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
