Re: CfC: to publish LCWD of: Server-Events, Web {SQL Database, Sockets, Storage, Worker}; deadline 15 December
On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the following specs: 1. Server-Sent Events http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ 2. Web SQL Database http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ 3. Web Sockets API http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 4. Web Storage http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ 5. Web Workers http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ Based on the comments for this CfC, we have unanimous support to publish LCWDs of: Server-Sent Events, Web Storage and Web Workers. Hixie - please prepare these 3 specs for a 17 December publication and a LC comment period ending 30 June 2010. Several members of the group (Nikunj[1], Charles[2], Arun[3], Art[4], Adrian[5]) raised concerns about Web SQL Database where the primary concerns raised are the normative User agents must implement the SQL dialect supported by Sqlite 3.6.19 requirement and a commitment for a second implementation of this requirement. Adrian raised some concerns [5] about Web Sockets API and these should be discussed on the list. -Art Barstow [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/ 1262.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/ 1264.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/ 1265.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/ 1311.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/ 1335.html
Re: CfC: to publish LCWD of: Server-Events, Web {SQL Database, Sockets, Storage, Worker}; deadline 15 December
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote: Several members of the group (Nikunj[1], Charles[2], Arun[3], Art[4], Adrian[5]) raised concerns about Web SQL Database where the primary concerns raised are the normative User agents must implement the SQL dialect supported by Sqlite 3.6.19 requirement and a commitment for a second implementation of this requirement. The second concern seems more appropriate as a reason not to exit CR than as a reason to not enter LC. Nothing in the process precludes developing drafts up to CR without an implementation commitment. Is there any way to address the first concern? In the meantime, could we publish this draft as a regular WD, so that the /TR/ version is in sync with the latest draft? Adrian raised some concerns [5] about Web Sockets API and these should be discussed on the list. Will do. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: CfC: to publish LCWD of: Server-Events, Web {SQL Database, Sockets, Storage, Worker}; deadline 15 December
On Dec 16, 2009, at 11:54 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote: Several members of the group (Nikunj[1], Charles[2], Arun[3], Art[4], Adrian[5]) raised concerns about Web SQL Database where the primary concerns raised are the normative User agents must implement the SQL dialect supported by Sqlite 3.6.19 requirement and a commitment for a second implementation of this requirement. Is there any way to address the first concern? As some have noted previously, we would need a normative specification of the SQL dialect. Another option is to move the doc to the WG Note track. In the meantime, could we publish this draft as a regular WD, so that the /TR/ version is in sync with the latest draft? Yes. The requirements for publishing a plain (non-Last Call) WD are quite low and do not require consensus. I'll submit a publication request today. -Art Barstow
Re: CfC: to publish LCWD of: Server-Events, Web {SQL Database, Sockets, Storage, Worker}; deadline 15 December
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote: On Dec 16, 2009, at 11:54 AM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote: Several members of the group (Nikunj[1], Charles[2], Arun[3], Art[4], Adrian[5]) raised concerns about Web SQL Database where the primary concerns raised are the normative User agents must implement the SQL dialect supported by Sqlite 3.6.19 requirement and a commitment for a second implementation of this requirement. Is there any way to address the first concern? As some have noted previously, we would need a normative specification of the SQL dialect. Another option is to move the doc to the WG Note track. Ok. Then I propose that we leave it at WD for now, since I do not intend to write a definition of the SQL dialect unless someone intends to implement this without using Sqlite. If anyone ever does want to implement Web SQL Database without Sqlite, please let me know and I'll spec out the SQL dialect. In the meantime, could we publish this draft as a regular WD, so that the /TR/ version is in sync with the latest draft? Yes. The requirements for publishing a plain (non-Last Call) WD are quite low and do not require consensus. I'll submit a publication request today. Thanks. What's the deadline by which we have to have submitted a request? If there's time, I'd like to address Adrian's feedback on the Web Sockets API and then either publish it as LC (if Adrian agrees) or at least WD. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: CfC: to publish LCWD of: Server-Events, Web {SQL Database, Sockets, Storage, Worker}; deadline 15 December
On Dec 16, 2009, at 2:46 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote: What's the deadline by which we have to have submitted a request? If there's time, I'd like to address Adrian's feedback on the Web Sockets API and then either publish it as LC (if Adrian agrees) or at least WD. The deadline is 18 December, 12pm ET and a few related e-mails this week indicated that earlier is strongly recommended. -Art Barstow
Re: CfC: to publish LCWD of: Server-Events, Web {SQL Database, Sockets, Storage, Worker}; deadline 15 December
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:46:03 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: What's the deadline by which we have to have submitted a request? If there's time, I'd like to address Adrian's feedback on the Web Sockets API and then either publish it as LC (if Adrian agrees) or at least WD. I think it makes more sense to publish as a working draft right now. The reality is that wider review that wasn't actually done earlier is often triggered by people holding something up, so assuming that your approach to addressing those comments in one day would result in a draft the entire group thinks is ready if they actually review it carefully seems optimistic at best. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Re: CfC: to publish LCWD of: Server-Events, Web {SQL Database, Sockets, Storage, Worker}; deadline 15 December
On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:09 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:46:03 +0100, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: What's the deadline by which we have to have submitted a request? If there's time, I'd like to address Adrian's feedback on the Web Sockets API and then either publish it as LC (if Adrian agrees) or at least WD. I think it makes more sense to publish as a working draft right now. The reality is that wider review that wasn't actually done earlier is often triggered by people holding something up, so assuming that your approach to addressing those comments in one day would result in a draft the entire group thinks is ready if they actually review it carefully seems optimistic at best. Chaals' points are good and if we want a publication of websockets before the December 18 publication request deadline, we should ask Hixie to please prepare a (non-LC) WD of websockets for 22 December publication. Hixie - is this doable? -Art Barstow
Re: CfC: to publish LCWD of: Server-Events, Web {SQL Database, Sockets, Storage, Worker}; deadline 15 December
On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the following specs: 1. Server-Sent Events http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ 2. Web SQL Database http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ 3. Web Sockets API http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 4. Web Storage http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ 5. Web Workers http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ I support the publication of all of these specs as LCWDs except Web SQL Database. I agree with the concerns raised by others re the normative User agents must implement the SQL dialect supported by Sqlite 3.6.19 requirement and the lack of a commitment for a second implementation of this requirement. -Art Barstow
RE: CfC: to publish LCWD of: Server-Events, Web {SQL Database, Sockets, Storage, Worker}; deadline 15 December
On Saturday, December 12, 2009 11:27 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:46:12 -0800, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the following specs: 1. Server-Sent Events http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ 2. Web SQL Database http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ 3. Web Sockets API http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 4. Web Storage http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ 5. Web Workers http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement to LCWD. Note that as specified in the Process Document [PD], a Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: Opera is not convinced that webdatabase is sufficiently clear and supported to be a last call draft. However we support the publication of the other drafts mentioned as last call working drafts. My personal position is the same as the above. While I support all the other specifications proceeding to LC, I think that more work needs to be done in order for webdatabase to proceed to the next step. Punting to a particular implementation (in this case, a version of SQLite) as a normative part of a specification is unprecedented in standards that this WG has released. At Microsoft, our position is similar on Web Database. We don't believe that relying on a particular version of SQLite is a good basis for long term interoperability. My opinion is that the database industry has spent a lot of time trying to standardise a dialect of SQL with only limited success and there's no reason to believe the WebApps working group is a good venue to try to do better. If this was a goal, we probably wouldn't start with the SQLite flavour of SQL either. We don't believe that the WebSockets API spec is sufficiently mature to move to Last Call. I don't think Many fundamental concepts from HTML5 are used by this specification is an adequate reference for the language included in a standalone W3C document intended to become a standard. Ian's recommendation to [use] the WHATWG complete.html version of the spec implies to me that the document is incomplete as it stands. Also, if the protocol and the API specs should be treated as part of the same thing even though published in different venues then doesn't it make sense to keep them in lock-step together? I'd appreciate some guidance from the chairs about whether they consider a document with this structure ready to move forward. Cheers, Adrian.
Re: CfC: to publish LCWD of: Server-Events, Web {SQL Database, Sockets, Storage, Worker}; deadline 15 December
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:46:12 -0800, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the following specs: 1. Server-Sent Events http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ 2. Web SQL Database http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ 3. Web Sockets API http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 4. Web Storage http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ 5. Web Workers http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement to LCWD. Note that as specified in the Process Document [PD], a Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: Opera is not convinced that webdatabase is sufficiently clear and supported to be a last call draft. However we support the publication of the other drafts mentioned as last call working drafts. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Re: CfC: to publish LCWD of: Server-Events, Web {SQL Database, Sockets, Storage, Worker}; deadline 15 December
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:46:12 -0800, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the following specs: 1. Server-Sent Events http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ 2. Web SQL Database http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ 3. Web Sockets API http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 4. Web Storage http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ 5. Web Workers http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement to LCWD. Note that as specified in the Process Document [PD], a Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: Opera is not convinced that webdatabase is sufficiently clear and supported to be a last call draft. However we support the publication of the other drafts mentioned as last call working drafts. My personal position is the same as the above. While I support all the other specifications proceeding to LC, I think that more work needs to be done in order for webdatabase to proceed to the next step. Punting to a particular implementation (in this case, a version of SQLite) as a normative part of a specification is unprecedented in standards that this WG has released. -- A*
Re: CfC: to publish LCWD of: Server-Events, Web {SQL Database, Sockets, Storage, Worker}; deadline 15 December
Hi Art, This is Oracle's official position on Web SQL Database: Oracle does not believe that Web SQL Database is ready for Last Call. Oracle believes that: 1. It is not good for the industry to start a new SQL language standard track. A better approach would be to define a profile based on the existing SQL language standard, ISO/IEC 9075, that meets the needs of Web applications. We should not ignore the many years of work by that committee and the database community, and should instead build on it. 2. The draft being proposed for Last Call, defines the SQL language by referring to a particular version of the SQLite implementation. Such a definition is not a valid standard as it does not allow for alternative implementations. To turn this into a valid specification we need to include a normative textual specification of the language accepted by SQLite. We can start with the SQLite SQL language manual (http://www.sqlite.org/lang.html ), but again, just referring to this URL is not acceptable as a normative specification. 3. Assuming that the editor decides to specify the SQL language by including its normative textual specification, the WG needs time to review this substantial amount of new material before sending this proposal out to the larger community. I want to remind the members that silence today means assent for Last Call, which means they agree that: (1) A new SQL language standards track is good, (2) Defining a bag of implementation bits as a standard is good. Even if you personally have lost interest in this specification and can't be bothered to respond, remember that we in the WG have a collective responsibility to do no harm. Nikunj P. S. Consider this paragraph from the SQLite manual (http://www.sqlite.org/lang_droptable.html ): The DROP TABLE statement does not reduce the size of the database file in the default mode. Empty space in the database is retained for later INSERT statements. To remove free space in the database, use the VACUUM statement. If auto_vacuum mode is enabled for a database then space will be freed automatically by DROP TABLE. This is a perfectly fine behavior and a perfectly fine paragraph in a manual. However this is not the kind of language you expect to see in a standard where a wider range of behaviors is desired. On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the following specs: 1. Server-Sent Events http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ 2. Web SQL Database http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ 3. Web Sockets API http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 4. Web Storage http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ 5. Web Workers http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement to LCWD. Note that as specified in the Process Document [PD], a Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working Draft; * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies with other groups; * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement is also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the technical report to later maturity levels. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is 14 December. The comment period length will be 6 months (ending ~17 June 2010 if the LCWD is published ~ 17 December 2009) unless someone commits (by 15 December) to completing the review earlier including actively editing the spec, responding to comments, etc. -Regards, Art Barstow [PD] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call Nikunj http://o-micron.blogspot.com
Re: CfC: to publish LCWD of: Server-Events, Web {SQL Database, Sockets, Storage, Worker}; deadline 15 December
As always, I should point out that there is no such thing as an official mozilla position. With that out of the way, my feelings are: * I don't think that source code makes a good specification. It's bound to specify things that we'd rather not specify (i.e. bugs in the code), and it'll make it hard to write multiple independent specifications. * I personally don't consider multiple implementations that are all backed by SQLite to be independent implementations. Given that, and that it sounds like no one is planning on writing an implementation that is not backed by SQLite, it does not seem like this spec is likely to go to Rec. However, if despite these comments others want to spend time on taking the spec further, and if W3C is willing to allow that despite the above technical comments, then I'm not going to stand in the way. I'd rather spend my time on improving the spec formerly known as WebSimpleDB. / Jonas On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote: Hi Art, This is Oracle's official position on Web SQL Database: Oracle does not believe that Web SQL Database is ready for Last Call. Oracle believes that: 1. It is not good for the industry to start a new SQL language standard track. A better approach would be to define a profile based on the existing SQL language standard, ISO/IEC 9075, that meets the needs of Web applications. We should not ignore the many years of work by that committee and the database community, and should instead build on it. 2. The draft being proposed for Last Call, defines the SQL language by referring to a particular version of the SQLite implementation. Such a definition is not a valid standard as it does not allow for alternative implementations. To turn this into a valid specification we need to include a normative textual specification of the language accepted by SQLite. We can start with the SQLite SQL language manual (http://www.sqlite.org/lang.html), but again, just referring to this URL is not acceptable as a normative specification. 3. Assuming that the editor decides to specify the SQL language by including its normative textual specification, the WG needs time to review this substantial amount of new material before sending this proposal out to the larger community. I want to remind the members that silence today means assent for Last Call, which means they agree that: (1) A new SQL language standards track is good, (2) Defining a bag of implementation bits as a standard is good. Even if you personally have lost interest in this specification and can't be bothered to respond, remember that we in the WG have a collective responsibility to do no harm. Nikunj P. S. Consider this paragraph from the SQLite manual (http://www.sqlite.org/lang_droptable.html): The DROP TABLE statement does not reduce the size of the database file in the default mode. Empty space in the database is retained for later INSERT statements. To remove free space in the database, use the VACUUM statement. If auto_vacuum mode is enabled for a database then space will be freed automatically by DROP TABLE. This is a perfectly fine behavior and a perfectly fine paragraph in a manual. However this is not the kind of language you expect to see in a standard where a wider range of behaviors is desired. On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working Draft of the following specs: 1. Server-Sent Events http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ 2. Web SQL Database http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ 3. Web Sockets API http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ 4. Web Storage http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ 5. Web Workers http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to record the group's decision to request advancement to LCWD. Note that as specified in the Process Document [PD], a Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working Draft; * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies with other groups; * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement is also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the technical report to later maturity levels. As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is 14 December. The comment period length will be 6 months (ending ~17 June 2010 if the LCWD is published ~ 17 December 2009) unless someone commits (by 15 December) to completing the review earlier including actively editing the spec, responding to comments, etc. -Regards, Art Barstow [PD]
