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

Re: Web Storage Scope and Charter

From: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:40:56 -0700
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, 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: <FCEBFE12-DECF-40FF-83D0-82D2A1B4555C@oracle.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>

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 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.)
>
> This seems to lead into a discussion of use cases and requirements.   
> You don't include those in your draft... Do you have a UCR document  
> that we could put on the wiki, like the one for Web Workers [1]  
> (note that although I put that into the wiki, I pulled them from  
> somewhere else, maybe the HTML wiki)?
>
> So, some of the requirements you're listing here are:
> * more useful for Web authors as a whole than SQL

This is not a specific requirement

>
> * browser vendors are willing to implement it

Neither is this

>
> * should have broad and scalable applicability

And nor is this

I have offered one set of suggestions, which are obviously a small and  
possibly narrow set of what might have gone in to the WG's thinking.  
If I had only one vote, I would cast it for a WebStorage requirement  
for seamless on-line/off-line data access.

>
>
> The first two are rather hard to quantify, and part of the process  
> of writing a spec is to discover what these are.  The best solution  
> is not necessarily the most obvious one from the start, and after  
> deeper examination, browsers implementers may be willing to  
> implement something that didn't appeal to them at the beginning.  
> (Any spec is better than no spec, so the fact that they may be  
> willing to implement whatever the current spec says doesn't mean  
> it's the best solution.)
>
> What are the other criteria you have in mind?
>
> Which other solutions have you looked at that don't meet these  
> criteria?
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> It's not too late at all.  This group can publish as frequently as  
> it wants, and we could have another WD up next week, with such a  
> message in it.  That would have an equally high profile.
>
> The overhead of this seems much less than that of changing the  
> charter.
>
>
>> 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?
>
> We can do both: publish an updated version of the spec that says  
> we're looking at various solutions, and examine the solutions that  
> come in (as a result of broad review that opens that door).
>
> If we are able to come to an immediate conclusion, I'm all in favor  
> of that.  But Nikunj, at least, doesn't seem to think we are there  
> yet, so I think it's worth reopening the larger issue.
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Web_Workers
>
> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 06:43:21 GMT

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