I like the name, except the Web part. Why is it necessary? I argued
that it will not be limited to user agents only.
Would it really be bad to call it Index Sequential Database?
On Nov 30, 2009, at 5:34 PM, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
how about "Indexed Sequential Web Database", losing the acronym,
even if familiar to those who work with databases? (not web-indexed,
however...)
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Nov 30, 2009, at 8:11 PM, ext Michael Nordman wrote:
Web-Indexed-Storage
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta <[email protected]
> wrote:
On Nov 30, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]>, 2009-11-30 14:46 -0800:
I agree with Mike, but I'd also note that "Web Key-Value Database"
could
easily be confused with WebStorage given that it also uses a Key-
Value
model.
True but we know the distinction is that Web Storage does not use
a database.
Do we make naming decisions considering just us WG members as its
audience or that of the general public? I think the general public
is well within its rights to treat Web Storage as a persistence
technology that seems to be like "Key-Value" database.
I want to emphasize here that I think "key-value" in the title
misses the subtlety - it is the use of index sequential access that
is at the heart of WebSimpleDB, and not key-value storage.
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
