On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Michael Fitchett wrote:
Dear Members of the W3C Consortium::
Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active
I would like to request that you make the W3C Web SQL Database specification
active again. The Web SQL Database
* Michael Fitchett wrote:
Since lack of definition is the issue, I would like to recommend a remedy.
I know SQL experts and great documentation writers who I would gladly hire
to further define the Web SQL Database specification and fill in the
missing SQL definition. Is this something that would
I agree with Marcos. Also, I thinks IndexedDB fits better as a
Javascript database working in a pure object oriented way. I don't
think WebSQL it's absolutely bad, relational databases usually are
easier to work with, but a NoSQL one can be more efficient. I would go
for improve IndexedDB and if
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Daniel Buchner dan...@mozilla.com wrote:
While Promises would address this concern, I'm reluctant to go with that
solution because it imposes yet-another-polyfill-dependency on the web
component polyfills/libs.
That seems fine. Most new APIs require that
I don't see any compelling reason not to provide both. Let's not mistake an
appeal for a simple, backwards-compatible allowance, as a slight to
Promises ;)
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Daniel Buchner
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Daniel Buchner dan...@mozilla.com wrote:
I don't see any compelling reason not to provide both.
Twice the maintenance cost, more to learn, etc. Promises will be in
implementations long before web components are stable anyway. I don't
really think there's much of
On Friday, September 27, 2013 at 3:07 PM, pira...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Marcos. Also, I thinks IndexedDB fits better as a
Javascript database working in a pure object oriented way. I don't
think WebSQL it's absolutely bad, relational databases usually are
easier to work with, but a
Surely then we should remove all events defined by the Web Component specs
in favor of Promises, right? We're talking about a single event here - this
seems like a bit of an overreaction. Though Promises are cool, and I am not
against providing a complementary solution, you haven't presented
From: daniel...@gmail.com [daniel...@gmail.com] on behalf of Daniel Buchner
[dan...@mozilla.com]
Surely then we should remove all events defined by the Web Component specs in
favor of Promises, right?
I don't think anyone's suggesting that; let's not stuff strawmen here.
What's being
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Michael Fitchett
michael.fitch...@spotsync.com wrote:
Dear Members of the W3C Consortium::
Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active
I would like to request that you make the W3C Web SQL Database
specification active again. The Web SQL
10 matches
Mail list logo
