On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Folks-
I discussed this a bit with Nikunj offline, in the context of the
charter wording. He and I both agreed that the scope of the charter
was too narrow (that was my fault; I changed the wording to reflect
the abstract of the
On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
Jonas and others seem to support broadening the scope, and I've also
been reading various posts in the blogosphere that also question
whether
SQL is the right choice (I see a lot of support for
Hi, Nikunj-
Nikunj Mehta wrote (on 4/24/09 2:24 AM):
On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Rather than change the charter (which would require everyone who's
already rejoined to re-rejoin at the simplest, and might require
another AC review at the worst), Nikunj offered that he
On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:18:40 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The draft got published today, so it's too late to change the high-
profile version of the spec. Rather than add this message, I'd like
to just come
to some sort of
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Nikunj Mehta wrote (on 4/24/09 2:24 AM):
[snip]
Preferably, the current Section 4
would be renamed as
[[
Structured Storage
]]
with the following wording in it:
[[
The working group is currently debating whether SQL is the right
abstraction
On Apr 23, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Hi, Ian-
Ian Hickson wrote (on 4/23/09 4:18 PM):
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
Jonas and others seem to support broadening the scope, and I've also
been reading various posts in the blogosphere that also question
whether
SQL
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
Nikunj Mehta wrote (on 4/24/09 2:24 AM):
[snip]
Preferably, the current Section 4
would be renamed as
[[
Structured Storage
]]
with the following wording in it:
[[
The
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:18:40 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The draft got published today, so it's too late to change the
high-profile version of the spec. Rather than add this
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:51 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:18:40 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch
wrote:
The draft got published today, so it's too late to change the
high-profile
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:32:31 +0200, Nikunj Mehta nikunj.me...@oracle.com
wrote:
On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
FWIW, Opera is primarily interested in implementing the APIs currently
in the specification (including the SQL API). Specifying the specifics
of the SQL
Hi, Folks-
I discussed this a bit with Nikunj offline, in the context of the
charter wording. He and I both agreed that the scope of the charter was
too narrow (that was my fault; I changed the wording to reflect the
abstract of the current Web Storage spec, and I probably shouldn't
have),
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
Jonas and others seem to support broadening the scope, and I've also
been reading various posts in the blogosphere that also question whether
SQL is the right choice (I see a lot of support for JSON-based
approaches). At the very least, I think
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:18:40 +0200, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
The draft got published today, so it's too late to change the
high-profile version of the spec. Rather than add this message, I'd like
to just come
to some sort of conclusion on the issue. What are the various proposals
Hi, Ian-
Ian Hickson wrote (on 4/23/09 4:18 PM):
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
Jonas and others seem to support broadening the scope, and I've also
been reading various posts in the blogosphere that also question whether
SQL is the right choice (I see a lot of support for
Sounds good to me.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote:
Hi, Folks-
I discussed this a bit with Nikunj offline, in the context of the charter
wording. He and I both agreed that the scope of the charter was too narrow
(that was my fault; I changed the wording
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:
This seems to lead into a discussion of use cases and requirements.
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 interested in this to enable its
16 matches
Mail list logo
