27/09/2013 23:23, Jonas Sicking a écrit :
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
Not to beat a dead horse, but would https://code.google.com/p/csharp-sqlite/
count as an independent implementation of the SQLite SQL syntax?
I don't understand: is it a port of SQLite to managed code, or is it a
reimplementation from scratch?
--
Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Shane Harrelson wrote:
Not to beat a dead horse, but would https://code.google.com/p/csharp-sqlite/
count as an independent implementation of the SQLite SQL syntax?
Using an unmaintained project as a ways of advancing as specification would
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 23:00:21 +0100, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Shane Harrelson wrote:
Not to beat a dead horse, but would
https://code.google.com/p/csharp-sqlite/ count as an independent
implementation of the SQLite SQL syntax?
So
Le 27/09/2013 23:23, Jonas Sicking a écrit :
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
On 10/1/13 8:46 AM, ext David Bruant wrote:
Le 27/09/2013 23:23, Jonas Sicking a écrit :
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
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
2. *Two* independent, production quality, database implementations
being willing to implement exactly that SQL dialect. Not a subset of
it, and not a
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
:
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 Specification
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
