On Nov 25, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.me...@oracle.com
> wrote:
On Nov 24, 2009, at 7:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Based on the responses for this call for comments, I see the next
steps as:
1. Server-sent Events, Web Storage and Web Workers - ready for LCWD
publication. Later today I will begin a CfC to publish LCWD of these
three specs
2. Web Sockets API - the group should discuss Adrian's comments:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/
0842.html
3. Web Database - there is sufficient interest to keep this spec on
the
Recommendation track. However, there is an open question about who
will
commit to drive this spec, in particular who will commit to being its
Editor. Hixie - would you please explain your intent/position here?
My intent with the Web SQL Database spec (or whatever I end up calling
it) is to continue to drive it to REC, but without defining the SQL
dialect in any more detail than the draft does now (as edited after
the
F2F).
This suggests that we are unlikely to make any progress on the draft
past this point.
I would not consider multiple implementations all using the same SQL
backend to be fully independent for the purposes of getting two
interoperable implementations for the purpose of exiting CR, and
thus I do
not expect this spec to ever get past that stage.
I don't see any logic in this that would benefit this WG.
I think the logic behind the decision is already clear in this
thread. I don't see why you're being so adamant about this when
you're affected very little by the decision either way (except that
your proposal has less "competition" I suppose).
My position about WebDatabase has been the same for over 8 months now.
Needless to say, objections are about the substance not the business
benefit or otherwise. If you or others can offer a clear solution
about the substance of my issue, I will gladly withdraw my objection.
There is no benefit in us discussing reasons for why we have a
substantive issue. It exists therefore I have the issue and I am not
willing to look the other way.
Oracle cares to avoid needless confusion and I don't think I am doing
any disservice to this WG as Oracle's representative in stating its
position, which is principled, constructive and transparent.
What doesn't make sense is to put this WG through the effort knowing
fully well that the result cannot be accomplished. The editor's
proposal appears to be an attempt at circumventing the W3C process.
Not every behavior you or other vendors implement is a good or a legal
standard. It is hypocritical to condone attempts at standardizing such
behaviors.
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
