W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

[Fwd: Re: Web Storage & SQL]

From: Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa <@>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:43:51 +0200
Message-ID: <49DE25C7.5050908@hoa-project.net>
To: public-webapps@w3c.org

-------- Message original --------
Sujet: 	Re: Web Storage & SQL
Date : 	Thu, 9 Apr 2009 18:28:10 +0200
De : 	Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
Pour : 	Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa <w3c@hoa-project.net>

2009/4/9 Ivan Enderlin @ Hoa<w3c@hoa-project.net>:
>  Hi :-),
>  Le 9/04/09 17:29, Giovanni Campagna a écrit :
>>  2009/4/9 Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky@mit.edu>:
>>>  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 = "sql" uses the standard SQL, type="sqlite"
>>>>  uses SQLite extensions, type="-vendor-xyz" is a vendor specific
>>>>  extension, etc.
>>>  How does this solve the original "no such thing as standard SQL, really"
>>>  issue?
>>  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 ISO page.
>>  As usual, if you want interoperability, you use the existing,
>>  implemented, standard (or you ask the ISO to produce an updated
>>  standard with new features), else you use extensions.
>  A Database Abstract Layer (DAL, i.e. a system that enables user to select
>  the Relational Database Management System, RDMS, to use) is a good idea but
>  it does not sound standard anymore. I mean: we are postponing the problem,
>  because who, why and how will decide what RDMS must be implemented?
>  What about XML based database?
>  Best regards.

First, we have "sql". This is the start of the Database proposals, and
all conforming implementation must expose an SQL interface that is
conforming to the ISO standard I cited before.
Then we could add "xml" and "json" (or other formats) as standard to
be implemented by everyone. This is only a choice of query language
and data model (trees, objects and tables), not of the DBMS (SQLite vs
SQLServer), and I hope this choice will be made by the WebApps Working
Group, as this is the WG chartered for the WebStorage proposal.
Thirdly, we have extension, in the form of "-vendor-dbms". For
example, I may expect that IE will have a "-ms-sqlserver". These
formats are by definition out of standard, but they allow the use of
extensions beyond the ISO SQL standard.

>  --
>  Ivan Enderlin
>  Developper of Hoa Framework
>  http://hoa-project.net/

Received on Thursday, 9 April 2009 16:44:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:15 UTC