Yes I agree, as has been said before on this list, that comments are
always welcome and let's all please make sure those comments are
consistent with the principles to which I referred.
-Art Barstow
On Apr/1/2011 12:21 PM, ext Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Arthur Barstow<art.bars...@nokia.com> wrote:
Hear.
I am starting to think that Mozilla will step up and provide an embedding
of SQLite, even if it has to only think of it as such. It will have to.
People would rather use a working database than something crippled albeit
"specced" (see LocalStorage or IndexedDB).
It was things like XHR in all their unspecced glory that brought the web
to where it is today.
Joran - as one of the moderators of public-webapps, I find your comments
above offensive to those that work on the specs you mention.
FWIW, I think the comments were substantive and made a potentially
valid point, without impugning the editors of the relevant
specifications in any way. Functionality is very important to
authors, and it's fair to argue that underspecified but powerful and
easy-to-implement features can sometimes be better than
better-specified features that won't have nearly as many features for
some years to come. We should all remember that while
interoperability is important, so are features, and we cannot rule out
technologies for not being interoperable enough without considering
their advantages as well. (I have no strong opinion on the specific
issue in question, though.)
I would not be offended if someone made comments such as this about a
spec I write, and think it would be bad to discourage feedback like
it.
