- From: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:52:37 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
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 <ian@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 that exist to solve this problem other than >>>> SQL, and how willing are the browser vendors to implement those >>>> solutions? >>> >>> FWIW, Opera is primarily interested in implementing the APIs >>> currently >>> in the specification (including the SQL API). Specifying the >>> specifics >>> of the SQL dialect in due course would be good though, but doing >>> that >>> does not seem very controversial and I would assume is a requirement >>> for going to Last Call. >> >> I am puzzled that you feel that specifying the semantics for the SQL >> dialect would be straightforward. We have no experience of using more >> than a single database implementation for WebStorage. > > That's pretty much why it would be straightforward. > > >> Its kind of interesting that the WG is attempting to standardize that >> which has no more than a single implementation. > > Most things in the W3C get standardised (to LC or CR) before they have > even one. Having one at all is generally considered a bonus. :-) That does simplify things for me and should help the proposal I am to make tomorrow.
Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 06:54:42 UTC