On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
While good work has gone into the IDL/JavaScript Call Level Interface
(CLI), we have made no progress on its SQL language specification and
are not likely to in the future.
For the record, we've made no progress because I explicitly wasn't going
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Charles McCathieNevile
cha...@opera.com wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:23:38 +0100, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com
wrote:
...As I noted at TPAC, at Microsoft we don't think we'll collectively be
able to achieve reasonable interop because of the SQL
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:23:38 +0100, Adrian Bateman
adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
...As I noted at TPAC, at Microsoft we don't think we'll collectively be
able to achieve reasonable interop because of the SQL dialect issue ...
it seems unlikely that there will be two independent
On Friday, November 20, 2009 4:44 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:23:38 +0100, Adrian Bateman
adria...@microsoft.com wrote:
...As I noted at TPAC, at Microsoft we don't think we'll collectively
be able to achieve reasonable interop because of the SQL dialect issue
On Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:51 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
I think it make sense to clarify in working drafts that this spec is
unlikely to be interoperable across the web at large, but is usable for
various specific systems.
I don't think it makes sense to just turn it into a
I'm not sure that further back-and-forth on this topic is useful at
this time. I know that you are strongly against Web Database. You have
expressed that view for some time, and I don't expect to change your
mind. I don't find your arguments particularly persuasive either. If
we continue
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:35:57 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
Further: if the other vendors planning to ship Web Database
implementations (Google, Opera, perhaps others who have not spoken up
yet) take the position that they would be like to end work on Web
Database at the
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:35:57 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
Further: if the other vendors planning to ship Web Database
implementations (Google, Opera, perhaps others who have not spoken up yet)
take
On Nov 18, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com
wrote:
Further: if the other vendors planning to ship Web Database
implementations (Google, Opera
What they are going to ship is mostly the same implementation as
Hi guys,
I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1] and I've
come to two conclusions. (1) We are miles away from consensus on this
specification, and, hence, we should _not_ consider putting it out for
last call. (2) While good work has gone into the IDL/JavaScript Call
On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
Hi guys,
I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1] and I've
come to two conclusions. (1) We are miles away from consensus on
this specification, and, hence, we should _not_ consider putting it
out for last call. (2)
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
Hi guys,
I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1] and I've
come to two conclusions. (1) We are miles away from consensus on
this specification, and, hence, we
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:26 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
Hi guys,
I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1] and
I've come to two conclusions. (1) We are miles away
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:26 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
Hi guys,
I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1]
14 matches
Mail list logo
