On Nov 9, 2009, at 8:29 AM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:44:09 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]>
wrote:
At the Web Apps WG face-to-face meeting at TPAC, all parties
agreed (in
the room at least) to let the spec continue without fully
specifying the
SQL dialect.
This is not at all the sense that I got. Hixie agreed to specify
something
that he could copy-and-paste, since he doesn't see the value in
working
hard on agreeing to a dialect where two major players aren't
interested,
and others are sufficiently unimpressed by the SQL approach that
they plan
to follow the WebSimpleDB approach.
The reason is that all parties who currently have or are in the
process
of developing implementations did not appear to need it, and the
parties
that would be blocked (Mozilla, Microsoft) said their decision
would not
be swayed by having a spec, and would not implement regardless.
Thus, it
did not seem there would be a practical benefit to specifying the SQL
dialect. Thus, those present said they were satisfied to specify that
SQLite v3 is the dialect.
In other words, there is a specified dialogue - but not enough
apparent
energy to try and go further.
My sense is that this much agreement was considered important to
justify
keeping the spec in the WG.
As an FYI on the dialect, Hixie updated the Editor's Draft to include
the following (note the date on the top of the ED says Oct 29 but
Hixie actually updated it on 3 November):
[[
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/#web-sql
User agents must implement the SQL dialect supported by Sqlite 3.6.19.
]]
Note: I would try to find Apple resources to help write a SQL dialect
spec if anyone says it will materially help them to have such a spec
(and the level of interest doesn't reach the threshold where Hixie
wants
to write it himself). I don't think I could get resources if it's
just a
busywork exercise.
Opera would be interested in you doing that (or Hixie, but it seems
he is
not) so we could keep building interoperable implementations, if
you're
not happy with SQLite v3.
Given the feedback on implementations [1], I think the next
publication of Web Database should be a WD rather than a WG Note.
By publishing a WG Note, the group would say it will no longer do any
work on the Web Database spec. Such a position seems a bit short-
sighted at the moment, given the relative immaturity of WebSimpleDB
API and the issues raised about it last week [2].
If/when the Web Database spec meets LC criteria (e.g. see [3]), I
support it being published as a LCWD provided the Editor and WG agree
to process any comments submitted.
-Regards, Art Barstow
[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-webapps-minutes.html#item11
[2] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-webapps-minutes.html#item14
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/
0607.html
