I agree that it'd be best to have a spec independent of database platform,
which is why I was asking about an idea along the lines of RelationalDB
https://github.com/keean/RelationalDBor the example I gave in the email
which initiated this discussion, both of which are entirely abstracted from
the
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 00:42:40, Glenn Maynard wrote:
You can certainly ask if they're interested in doing so, not for our
benefit (whoever our means), but for the benefit of the Web as a whole,
and there's nothing at all rude in asking. I'd say the opposite: it's rude
to assume they
I am incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of putting the
responsibility of the health of the web in the hands of one project.
In fact, one of the main reasons I started working at Mozilla was to
prevent this.
/ Jonas
I agree with you. All the more reason to support both WebSQL and
Hi Michael,
I am also not subscribed to public-html so I don't know if the HTMLWG
discussed splitting Offline Web apps into a separate spec. One of
reasons Storage, Server-sent Events, etc. were split out of HTML5 spec
is to permit those specs moving through the W3C's Recommendation track
Pity.
Anyway RelationalDB defines its API without reference to the underlying SQL
or non-SQL database... So as a candidate for replacing WebSQL, it does not
suffer from that problem.
Cheers,
Keean.
On 2 April 2011 14:56, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 5:24 AM,
On 4/2/11 5:46 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Right, I get that much, but that mail I linked to previously claimed
this difference was somehow observable from scripts, but I don't see
how.
Scripts can tell which object on the prototype chain a property comes
from pretty trivially, no? Most simply
