On Apr 17, 2009, at 2:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Nikunj Mehta
wrote:
On Apr 11, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Nikunj Mehta >
wrote:
On Apr 10, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nikunj
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>
> On Apr 11, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Nikunj Mehta
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 10, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>
> Can some
On Apr 11, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Nikunj Mehta > wrote:
On Apr 10, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
Can someone state the various requirements for Web Storage? I did
not
find them enunciated anyw
On 4/10/09 1:53 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I don't think this one point should be decisive by itself. But I don't
think it should be given zero weight either. I do think the existence of
an implementation of the current spec and Web content using it somewhat
raises the burden of proof on anyone
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>>> Can someone state the various requirements for Web Storage? I did not
>>> find them enunciated anywhere.
>> There's only one requirement that I kn
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> There are many use cases, e.g. Google is interested in this to enable its
> applications to be taken offline. We recently released offline GMail using
> this SQL backend; one could easily imagine other applications like
> Calendar, Reader, Do
On Apr 10, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
Can someone state the various requirements for Web Storage? I did not
find them enunciated anywhere.
There's only one requirement that I know of:
* Allow Web sites to store structured data on the clien
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>
> Can someone state the various requirements for Web Storage? I did not
> find them enunciated anywhere.
There's only one requirement that I know of:
* Allow Web sites to store structured data on the client.
There are many use cases, e.g. Google is in
Nikunj Mehta wrote:
One clear problem identified despite these examples is that we do not
have a precise enough spec for the query language to make truly
independent interoperable implementations possible.
There are several different query languages that can be interoperably
implemented - Luc
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I don't think this one point should be decisive by itself. But I don't
think it should be given zero weight either.
Agreed (in case that wasn't clear).
Note that one of the clients in question is the offline-enabled mobile
version of GMail. I think this demonstrates t
On Apr 10, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
One clear problem identified despite these examples is that we do
not have a precise enough spec for the query language to make truly
independent interoperable implementations possible.
There are several different query languages that c
On Apr 9, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I agree that "no such thing as standard SQL" (or rather the fact
that implementations all have extensions and divergences from the
spec) is a problem. But I am not sure inventing a brand new query
language and datab
Hi :-),
My opinion about the web storage & SQL is splitted in two parts.
On the one hand, making a subset of SQL instructions is very difficult.
Each of us knows that and no-one would say the contrary.
On the other hand, I have made an ORM in the past, build on two layers.
The first one
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I agree that "no such thing as standard SQL" (or rather the fact that
implementations all have extensions and divergences from the spec) is a
problem. But I am not sure inventing a brand new query language and
database model as proposed by Vlad is a good solution to thi
SQLite wasn't the first browser-accessible DBMS, nor is it the most
ubiquitous choice of target. IE's Jet database engine, which is the
underlying engine for Access, would seem to be the most useful target
specification. After all, the overwhelming majority of what I've heard
over the past
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> But I definitely think that we need to define a strict SQL dialect to
> use. One that will probably be stricter than SQLite currently is to
> allow for easy implementation with other SQL backends.
If we do decide to go this route, I'm happy to volunt
On Apr 9, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Maciej Stachowiak
wrote:
On Apr 9, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Giovanni Campagna wrote:
So why not adding a parameter on openDatabase() to specify what
kind
of database we want (and what kind
On Apr 9, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Apr 9, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Giovanni Campagna wrote:
So why not adding a parameter on openDatabase() to specify what kind
of database we want (and what kind of query language we will use)?
I mean something like
openD
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Apr 9, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> Giovanni Campagna wrote:
>>> So why not adding a parameter on openDatabase() to specify what kind
>>> of database we want (and what kind of query language we will use)?
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Apr 9, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
>> Giovanni Campagna wrote:
>>>
>>> So why not adding a parameter on openDatabase() to specify what kind
>>> of database we want (and what kind of query language we will use)?
>>> I mea
On Apr 9, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Giovanni Campagna wrote:
So why not adding a parameter on openDatabase() to specify what kind
of database we want (and what kind of query language we will use)?
I mean something like
openDatabase(name, version, type, displayName, estimatedSize)
On Apr 8, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Vladimir Vukicevic wrote:
There's been a lot of interest around the Web Storage spec (formerly
part of whatwg HTML5), which exposes a SQL database to web
applications to use for data storage, both for online and offline
use. It presents a simple API designed for
Giovanni Campagna wrote:
Yes. With extensions I mean writing "start transaction" instead of
"begin", using the backquotes instead of double quotes for
identifires, using INET and spatial data types, using table options...
OK.
This is
not the case. A query written based on that ISO standard
2009/4/9 Boris Zbarsky :
> Giovanni Campagna wrote:
>>
>> We have a standard SQL, and we have DBMS-specific extensions (for
>> SQLite, for MySQL, for SQLServer, etc.).
>
>> The latest version is "ISO/IEC 9075:2008 Information technology --
>> Database languages -- SQL", released in 2008, but active
Message original
Sujet: Re: Web Storage & SQL
Date : Thu, 9 Apr 2009 18:28:10 +0200
De :Giovanni Campagna
Pour : Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa
2009/4/9 Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa:
Hi :-),
Le 9/04/09 17:29, Giovanni Campagna a écrit :
2009/4/9 Boris Zbarsky:
Giov
Hi :-),
Le 9/04/09 17:29, Giovanni Campagna a écrit :
2009/4/9 Boris Zbarsky:
Giovanni Campagna wrote:
So why not adding a parameter on openDatabase() to specify what kind
of database we want (and what kind of query language we will use)?
I mean something like
openDatabase(name, vers
Giovanni Campagna wrote:
We have a standard SQL, and we have DBMS-specific extensions (for
SQLite, for MySQL, for SQLServer, etc.).
> The latest version is "ISO/IEC 9075:2008 Information technology --
> Database languages -- SQL", released in 2008, but actively being
> revised, according to the
2009/4/9 Boris Zbarsky :
> Giovanni Campagna wrote:
>>
>> So why not adding a parameter on openDatabase() to specify what kind
>> of database we want (and what kind of query language we will use)?
>> I mean something like
>> openDatabase(name, version, type, displayName, estimatedSize)
>> where typ
Giovanni Campagna wrote:
So why not adding a parameter on openDatabase() to specify what kind
of database we want (and what kind of query language we will use)?
I mean something like
openDatabase(name, version, type, displayName, estimatedSize)
where type can be any string
so, for example, type =
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Giovanni Campagna wrote:
> As far as I understand from this discussion and from the linked posts,
> there are currently three database types and their respective query
> languages:
>
> - relational databases and SQL
> - Ecmascript objects and JSONQu
As far as I understand from this discussion and from the linked posts,
there are currently three database types and their respective query
languages:
- relational databases and SQL
- Ecmascript objects and JSONQuery
- XML databases and XQuery
Each one has its own merits: for example XML allows to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vladimir Vukicevic wrote:
> (I originally blogged this at
> http://blog.vlad1.com/2009/04/06/html5-web-storage-and-sql/, but
> Hixie rightfully pointed out that I should post it here for
> discussion -- doing so! Blog post is copied pretty much ver
(I originally blogged this at
http://blog.vlad1.com/2009/04/06/html5-web-storage-and-sql/, but Hixie
rightfully pointed out that I should post it here for discussion --
doing so! Blog post is copied pretty much verbatim below, so apologies
if it sounds more blog-y than post-y.)
There's been
33 matches
Mail list logo
