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

Re: Web Storage Scope and Charter (was: CfC: FPWD of Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets API, Web Storage, and Web Workers; deadline April 10)

From: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:24:03 -0700
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7B947B4C-D9A7-492B-92BE-3CA1FA326F43@oracle.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>

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 current Web Storage spec, and I probably  
> shouldn't have), but we also agreed that the spec itself is higher  
> profile and more important than the wording in the charter.
>
> 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 this group should  
> discuss this more before committing to any one solution.  I note  
> that Ian was already open to an early spec revision on the same  
> lines, so I hope this isn't controversial.
>
> 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 would be  
> satisfied if more generic wording were put in the charter, and  
> highlighted as an issue.

To be precise, I suggested that we can table the charter issue for  
now, and emphasize in the spec that we haven't finalized SQL as the  
only structured storage access solution. 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 for structured storage.
]]


> I would propose something like, "This specification currently  
> contains wording specific to a SQL or name-value pair storage  
> solution, but the WebApps WG is discussing other structured storage  
> alternatives that may better match the use cases and requirements."   
> I leave it up to Nikunj to provide wording that would satisfy him.
>
> If this is acceptable to the WG as a whole, I would ask that a  
> message similar to the above be put in a prominent place in the  
> spec.  This seems like the soundest way forward.
>
> Art, Chaals, care to chime in?  Other comments on this matter?
>
> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
>
>
> Jonas Sicking wrote (on 4/21/09 6:22 PM):
>> Hmm.. I tend to agree. Using an SQL database is only one possible
>> solution that we should be examining. I would rather say that we
>> should provide storage for structured data inside the UA. I'm not a
>> fan of calling out neither SQL or name-value pair storage.
>>
>> At the same time I'm not sure that I care that much about it, as long
>> as we can change the draft later in case the spec takes a different
>> turn than the current drafts.
>>
>> / Jonas
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Nikunj  
>> Mehta<nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>  wrote:
>>> Apparently the new charter [1] that forces everyone to re-join the  
>>> WG also
>>> lists among its deliverables as WebStorage with the explanation that
>>> WebStorage is
>>>
>>> "two APIs for client-side data storage in Web applications: a name- 
>>> value
>>> pair system, and a database system with a SQL frontend"
>>>
>>> Clearly, if the WD of WebStorage has in its abstract something  
>>> more general,
>>> the charter should not be so specific.
>>>
>>> I now understand that this new piece of text made its way into the  
>>> charter
>>> recently. The last message I can see about charter change for  
>>> WebApps [1]
>>> only talks about adding WebWorkers. Apparently other changes were  
>>> also made,
>>> but no diff provided to members about the charter change proposal.
>>>
>>> Can you throw some light on this?
>>>
>>> Nikunj
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/webapps-charter
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/3E428EC7-1960-4ECE-B403-827BA47FE1EB@nokia.comIan
>>> Hickson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's what Oracle would like to see in the abstract:
>>>
>>> This specification defines two APIs for persistent data storage in  
>>> Web
>>> clients: one for accessing key-value pair data and another for  
>>> accessing
>>> structured data.
>>>
>>>
>>> Done.
>
>
Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 06:26:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT