I would like to suggest that these specs be renamed to better reflect
what they are about.
For one, using the term Web in the title draws attention as the one
(or the primary one). Secondly, it says nothing about the constructs
offered. For example, WebDatabase suggests that this is *the*
For what it's worth I don't think using the word Web in the name
makes the connection that this is *the* *only* specification for
storage for the web. I'll also point out that specs can be renamed at
any point in the future if it turns out that the name is confusing.
I also think the name of the
On Jul 16, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Something like WebSQLDatabase would be better.
It may be irrelevant in the long run, but definitely worth a lot early
on, IMHO. I like your name suggestion.
Nikunj
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
[...] (if anything, I think we should split Web Storage into two
further specs [...]
[...] I would prefer to see SQL Storage split out of the rest of Web
Storage. We seem to have rough
The abstract still states:
[[
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.
]]
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
On Jul 15, 2009, at 3:56 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Maciej Stachowiakm...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
FWIW, I came across two pieces about Oracle's open source licensing of
Berkeley DB that might help clear the air around the licensing issues.
First, Oracle's license
On Jul 4, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:06:21 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak
m...@apple.com wrote:
On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
Secondly, Oracle proposes adding request interception and
programmable http cache to the WG's
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:03:48 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
On Jul 4, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
We are potentially interested - i.e. we want to see how the spec
comes out first. Given that this is in the scope of existing
deliverables, and given
On Jul 4, 2009, at 7:43 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:03:48 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak
m...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 4, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
We are potentially interested - i.e. we want to see how the spec
comes out first. Given that
A member submission was already made [1] that describes a concrete
proposal and several examples. I would appreciate feedback on it.
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0341.html
On Jun 27, 2009, at 9:02 AM, Robin Berjon
On Jun 26, 2009, at 6:07 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I have a tutorial available to understand how one can use Berkeley
DB to store data with multiple fields [1]. If you are only
interested in understanding how to do look up by one or
On Jun 26, 2009, at 07:49 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
It's also not clear to me if a BDB-level API is sufficient for
developer needs.
That's something that we should nail down early this time around. I
tend to think that sufficient for developer needs means good enough
that one can
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:43 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
I strongly agree on these points. I would prefer to see SQL Storage
split out of the rest of Web Storage. We seem to have rough consensus
and strong multilateral implementor interest on LocalStorage and
: Points of order on this WG
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:43 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
I strongly agree on these points. I would prefer to see SQL Storage
split out of the rest of Web Storage. We seem to have rough consensus
and strong multilateral implementor interest
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
The plan of record would be to split out the SQL Storage section into
its own spec, with an alternate spec edited by Nikunj, and to publish an
updated draft of Web Storage that points to both those other drafts.
This way, all parts of the web
On Jun 26, 2009, at 12:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:20:43 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak
m...@apple.com wrote:
I strongly agree on these points. I would prefer to see SQL Storage
split out of the rest of Web Storage. We seem to have rough
consensus and strong
On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:54 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I don't think the Web Storage draft (I assume by this you mean the
remaining draft that would define LocalStorage and SessionStorage)
needs to link to either of the other drafts.
It is customary, when something is split out of a draft, to
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:43:10 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
On Jun 26, 2009, at 12:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
FWIW, Opera is implementing SQL storage too.
That's great news! Having multiple independent implementations will, I
hope, provide more reason to advance the
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:09:43 +0200, Marcin Hanclik
marcin.hanc...@access-company.com wrote:
+1
Stable specification moving faster in the standards track will
definitely bring more implementations.
To be clear, when we decided to implement this feature it was still part
of the HTML5
. Mehta; public-webapps WG; Charles McCathieNevile;
Arthur Barstow; Jeff Mischkinsky
Subject: Re: Points of order on this WG
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:09:43 +0200, Marcin Hanclik
marcin.hanc...@access-company.com wrote:
+1
Stable specification moving faster in the standards track will
definitely bring
Please don't skimp on due diligence before making such strong
statements. It creates unnecessary friction. More details below.
On Jun 25, 2009, at 10:49 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jun 25, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R.
On Jun 25, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jun 25, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I think Nikunj's proposal definitely is worthy of being persued,
just like
the working group is persuing dozens of other proposals like XHR,
CORS,
Selectors API, Workers,
On Jun 25, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R.
Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I have proposed to Mozilla a solution that provides access to an
organized
key-value database such as that
On Jun 26, 2009, at 12:15 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Jun 26, 2009, at 07:49 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
It's also not clear to me if a BDB-level API is sufficient for
developer needs.
That's something that we should nail down early this time around. I
tend to think that sufficient for
On Jun 26, 2009, at 12:56 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Folks-
Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 6/25/09 7:20 PM):
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I think Nikunj's proposal definitely is worthy of being persued,
just
like
the working group is persuing dozens of other proposals
On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com
wrote:
Please don't skimp on due diligence before making such strong
statements. It creates unnecessary friction. More details below.
Similarly, I'd ask you to make
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Nikunj R.
Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
As a side note, it should be noted Berkeley DB itself could not be used
by WebKit or Gecko to implement the spec, because even though it is open
source, the license is not compatible with the LGPL. It seems unlikely
On Friday 2009-06-26 11:27 -0700, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Note that mozilla has since long made a commitment not to ship code
that is not compatible with all of GPL, LGPL *and* MPL. So unless the
BDB license is compatible with all those three we couldn't use BDB.
I think our (Mozilla's)
On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
As a side note, it should be noted Berkeley DB itself could not be
used by WebKit or Gecko to implement the spec, because even though
it is open source, the license is not compatible with the LGPL. It
seems unlikely that
Maciej, David, Jeremy, Doug, others,
I understand the interest in using Berkeley DB in browsers provided
appropriate licensing freedom were available. I am beginning to
understand your concerns vis-à-vis Berkeley DB's license.
I have asked our legal team to clarify what they mean by the
I have a tutorial available to understand how one can use Berkeley DB
to store data with multiple fields [1]. If you are only interested in
understanding how to do look up by one or more of them, please skip to
slide 51.
If this doesn't help, I can write up another explanation for the
On Friday 2009-06-26 15:27 -0700, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I understand the interest in using Berkeley DB in browsers provided
appropriate licensing freedom were available. I am beginning to
understand your concerns vis-à-vis Berkeley DB's license.
To be clear, I wasn't expressing any
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Nikunj R. Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
FWIW, I came across two pieces about Oracle's open source licensing of
Berkeley DB that might help clear the air around the licensing issues.
First, Oracle's license [1] is word-for-word identical to the erstwhile
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:40 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Friday 2009-06-26 15:27 -0700, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I understand the interest in using Berkeley DB in browsers provided
appropriate licensing freedom were available. I am beginning to
understand your concerns vis-à-vis Berkeley DB's
On Jun 26, 2009, at 4:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:40 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Friday 2009-06-26 15:27 -0700, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I understand the interest in using Berkeley DB in browsers provided
appropriate licensing freedom were available. I am beginning
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
FWIW, I came across two pieces about Oracle's open source licensing
of Berkeley DB that might help clear the air around the licensing
issues.
First, Oracle's license [1] is word-for-word identical to the
erstwhile SleepyCat license
On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
Secondly, Oracle proposes adding request interception and
programmable http cache to the WG's charter. Oracle will provide
resources for editing and reviewing proposals for all three
deliverables.
We already have a broad charter and
On Jun 26, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I have a tutorial available to understand how one can use Berkeley
DB to store data with multiple fields [1]. If you are only
interested in understanding how to do look up by one or more of
them, please skip to slide 51.
If this
Hi, Arun-
Arun Ranganathan wrote (on 6/25/09 1:38 AM):
On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
The Web Storage specification is someone dead-locked right now due
to the lack of consensus on whether to use SQL or not.
This topic continues to be discussed in Mozilla newsgroups. Few
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
The Web Storage specification is someone dead-locked right now due to the
lack of consensus on whether to use SQL or not.
I don't buy this argument for an instant, and I'd be very surprised if
Nikunj, All,
Charles will respond separately regarding a way forward but I want to
respond to the false accusation below.
On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:13 PM, ext Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
The WG chair went ahead with the publication of the Web Storage draft
overriding serious objections about it's
I have listed these requirements on my blog -
http://o-micron.blogspot.com/2009/06/requirements-for-and-components-needed.html
I will put these together in a forma suitable for W3C uses.
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:13 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Arun-
Arun
On Jun 24, 2009, at 7:34 PM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
Nikunj R. Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com, 2009-06-24 17:13 -0700:
I want to raise two formal points of order about the manner in
which this WG
has operated, particularly in respect to Web Storage.
1. Charter
2. Process
Firstly, no one
On Jun 24, 2009, at 10:24 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Nikunj-
I think Mike was overly blunt, but essentially correct in his
response, but I'd like to add a specific comment inline...
Nikunj R. Mehta wrote (on 6/24/09 8:13 PM):
On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
The Web
On Jun 25, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Nikunj, All,
Charles will respond separately regarding a way forward but I want
to respond to the false accusation below.
On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:13 PM, ext Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
The WG chair went ahead with the publication of the Web
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
In any case, adding a new feature to a spec whose future is uncertain
isn't a good idea because it means that the new feature's progress
is tied
to the uncertain future of the rest of the spec. Thus, my
recommendation
to Nikunj would be to
On Jun 25, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
I think Nikunj's proposal definitely is worthy of being persued,
just like
the working group is persuing dozens of other proposals like XHR,
CORS,
Selectors API, Workers, Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets, etc. I don't
believe it really
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R.
Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I have proposed to Mozilla a solution that provides access to an organized
key-value database such as that provided in the (open source) Berkeley DB.
In essence, a
On Jun 25, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Nikunj R.
Mehtanikunj.me...@oracle.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I have proposed to Mozilla a solution that provides access to an
organized
key-value database such as that
Nikunj R. Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com, 2009-06-24 17:13 -0700:
I want to raise two formal points of order about the manner in which this WG
has operated, particularly in respect to Web Storage.
1. Charter
2. Process
Firstly, no one seriously responds to proposals about things
Hi, Nikunj-
I think Mike was overly blunt, but essentially correct in his response,
but I'd like to add a specific comment inline...
Nikunj R. Mehta wrote (on 6/24/09 8:13 PM):
On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
The Web Storage specification is someone dead-locked right now
Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Nikunj-
I think Mike was overly blunt, but essentially correct in his
response, but I'd like to add a specific comment inline...
Nikunj R. Mehta wrote (on 6/24/09 8:13 PM):
On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
The Web Storage specification is someone
52 matches
Mail list logo
