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 23:29:25 -0700
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Message-Id: <95AF9931-B581-402F-BD7F-6FAE60E54BF2@oracle.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

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 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.
>
> If there is something that is more useful for Web authors as a whole  
> than
> SQL, and if the browser vendors are willing to implement it, then  
> the spec
> should use that, yes.
>
> (I don't know of anything that fits that criteria though. Most of the
> proposals so far have been things that are useful in specific  
> scenarios,
> but aren't really generic solutions.)
>
>
>> 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.
>
> 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
> that exist to solve this problem other than SQL, and how willing are  
> the
> browser vendors to implement those solutions?

I don't want to discredit the standardization efforts for SQL in  
WebStorage. Yet, this spec is just in its FPWD. Won't we be better off  
coming to a conclusion on the issue of the set of storage solutions  
and access techniques for the same soon after the WD is published?

By tomorrow, I commit to send a concrete proposal for solving storage  
needs (besides SQL) that I believe browser vendors would be able to  
(and hopefully willing to) implement. I am giving my current draft a  
thorough read before I send it off to the WG.

>
>
> -- 
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                ) 
> \._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _ 
> \  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'-- 
> (,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 06:31:37 GMT

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