On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Folks-
I discussed this a bit with Nikunj offline, in the context of the
charter wording. He and I both agreed that the scope of the charter
was too narrow (that was my fault; I changed the wording to reflect
the abstract of the
On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
Jonas and others seem to support broadening the scope, and I've also
been reading various posts in the blogosphere that also question
whether
SQL is the right choice (I see a lot of support for
Hi, Folks-
I discussed this a bit with Nikunj offline, in the context of the
charter wording. He and I both agreed that the scope of the charter was
too narrow (that was my fault; I changed the wording to reflect the
abstract of the current Web Storage spec, and I probably shouldn't
have),
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
Jonas and others seem to support broadening the scope, and I've also
been reading various posts in the blogosphere that also question whether
SQL is the right choice (I see a lot of support for JSON-based
approaches). At the very least, I think
Sounds good to me.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote:
Hi, Folks-
I discussed this a bit with Nikunj offline, in the context of the charter
wording. He and I both agreed that the scope of the charter was too narrow
(that was my fault; I changed the wording
You pretty much answered all my questions. Thanks.
I would be support the charter be modified with the original text
about storage APIs
[[
Offline APIs and Structured Storage for enabling local access to Web
application resources when not connected to a network
]]
Nikunj
On Apr 21, 2009,
Hmm.. I tend to agree. Using an SQL database is only one possible
solution that we should be examining. I would rather say that we
should provide storage for structured data inside the UA. I'm not a
fan of calling out neither SQL or name-value pair storage.
At the same time I'm not sure that I
Hi, Nikunj-
Nikunj Mehta wrote (on 4/21/09 5:44 PM):
Apparently the new charter [1] that forces everyone to re-join the WG
also lists among its deliverables as WebStorage with the explanation
that WebStorage is
two APIs for client-side data storage in Web applications: a name-value
pair
Oracle does not support the substance of the current Web Storage draft
[1][2][3]. This is a path-breaking change to the Web applications
platform and rushing such a major change without substantive
consideration of alternatives is not in its own best interest. Oracle
does not see it fit to
Hi Nikunj,
On Apr 10, 2009, at 10:42 AM, ext Nikunj Mehta wrote:
Oracle does not support the substance of the current Web Storage draft
[1][2][3]. This is a path-breaking change to the Web applications
platform and rushing such a major change without substantive
consideration of alternatives
Hi Art,
Oracle conditionally supports the publishing this draft as FPWD
provided that the abstract is worded appropriately. The reason to
clarify the abstract is so that the WG doesn't build an implicit
expectation that it will /only/ produce a SQL-based API in Web Storage.
Here's what
Just a clarification about the charter...
On Apr 10, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Regarding a WG Note, that doesn't seem appropriate in this case
since the WG's plan of record (Charter) is to create a
Recommendation for this spec.
The charter [1] includes Offline APIs and
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
Here's what Oracle would like to see in the abstract:
This specification defines two APIs for persistent data storage in Web
clients: one for accessing key-value pair data and another for accessing
structured data.
Done.
--
Ian Hickson
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public
Working Draft of the specs below.
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 April 10.
-Regards, Art Barstow
Begin forwarded
Nokia supports the publication of these FPWDs. -Regards, Art Barstow
On Apr 2, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public
Working Draft of the specs below.
As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and
15 matches
Mail list logo
