Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

[Shawn Wilsher]

On 4/1/2011 5:40 AM, Nathan Kitchen wrote:

Are there any browser vendor representatives on the mailing list who would
care to comment on the criteria for implementing something akin to Keean's
RelationalDB<https://github.com/keean/RelationalDB>  idea? What would need
to be in place to start work on such an implementation?

It wouldn't be terribly difficult to prototype this as an add-on for Firefox, I don't think (and I'd be happy to provide technical assistance to anyone wishing to do so). Doing this would allow web developers to install the add-on and play with it, which can give us useful feedback.

I'm not saying we'd move it into the tree at that point, but it's a good first step to building a case to take it.

    1. Opportunity to explore more solutions to "offline data" than *just *
    IndexedDB.

There is also http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/offline.html and http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ (even if you don't like them, they are other solutions to the offline problem). Browser vendors are not just looking at IndexedDB.

    2. Many web developers have a working knowledge of SQL, so the concepts
    of a relational database may be more familiar. If adoption could be
    considered a proxy for the "success" of a standard, I'd suggest that aiming
    for something the web development community understands would be a large
    factor in adoption.

I don't really think IndexedDB is that dissimilar to a relational database. There are a lot of one-to-one mappings of concepts of one to the other.

    3. It's probably (!) easier to implement RelationalDB than IndexedDB, as
    it maps fairly cleanly to existing relational database technologies. This
    would allow vendors to implement it using Sqlite, Access, etc independent of
    the spec.

Given that most vendors already have working implementations of IndexedDB, I don't think this is a good argument ;)

Cheers,

Shawn

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature