Hi Mike,
Good to see some comments on this.
On Nov 30, 2009, at 8:20 AM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
Hi Nikunj,
@2009-11-26 02:00 -0800:
[...]
Here's my suggestion:
1. WebDatabase be renamed to WebSQLDatabase
2. WebSimpleDB be renamed to ISAM Database Level 1
I don't think "ISAM Database Level 1" is an improvement.
As an alternative title, I suggest "Web Key-Value Database".
Key-Value by itself doesn't mean much. Certainly, it could be confused
with Web Storage and hence would not be appropriate. Do you have a
better suggestion that does not involve shuffling more names?
As far as what's wrong with "ISAM Database Level 1": For one
thing, the term "ISAM" is not actually mentioned anywhere in the
text of the current draft itself.
This objection can be easily remedied.
Also, I would wonder whether
most people in this group and on this mailing list know what
"ISAM" is.
You are probably right that people on this WG don't all know what ISAM
is. However, if you look at Microsoft's first review of WebSimpleDB,
you will find it there. So there are more people besides myself who
know about ISAM and think this spec is primarily talking about that.
I didn't. I had to look it up to see what it means. I
think it would be preferable to have a title that doesn't
reference a technology term that'll be obscure to most readers.
A generic term could mean something too broad and a specific term
might be arcane. To the extent that the arcane term is the most used
for a certain meaning and can be easily understood by readers with
minimal help, the specific term sounds more useful. Would you agree
that it was easy to understand what ISAM means when you spend 5
minutes reading the Wikipedia article on ISAM [1]?
I also suggest not including "Level 1" in the title unless/until
we also publish a "Level 2" draft.
I am not sure that is necessary. Knowing fully well how many people
have asked for requirements that are difficult to accommodate in the
first rev, it is important, although not essential, for readers to
know that more APIs could be layered on top.
I expect this spec to be expanded in a manner similar to DOM. If that
means not numbering anything now, then so be it. I can easily remove
the Level suffix.
And as far as the "Web" part of the title, the benefit of retaining
that in the title is that it's a convention that's developed as a
shorthand to indicate that a draft is for a technology that's
intended to be part of the Web platform -- and to be implemented
in Web clients/user-agents -- as opposed to being something
intended to be implemented on the server side, or as opposed to
something intended to be implemented for some other purpose than
for delivering and interacting with content on the Web.
I certainly don't think that is necessary considering that this API is
likely to be used on servers just as much as on clients. At least one
participant has stated that in this DL [2]. Therefore, I don't see the
benefit of putting a Web prefix.
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISAM
[2] http://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected]
