Re: Points of order on this WG

On Jun 24, 2009, at 10:24 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:

> Hi, Nikunj-
>
> I think Mike was overly blunt, but essentially correct in his  
> response, but I'd like to add a specific comment inline...
>
> Nikunj R. Mehta wrote (on 6/24/09 8:13 PM):
>>
>> On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> The Web Storage specification is someone dead-locked right now due  
>>> to the
>>> lack of consensus on whether to use SQL or not.
>
> <snip>
>
> As Kyle Weems put it: Deny, Delay, Too Late.
>
> <snip>
>
> I would endorse you, Nikunj, to edit the Web Storage spec to include  
> your proposal.  However, I will also say that the burden of proving  
> that your solution is better lies on you.  I'm not going to pretend  
> this is not an uphill battle.  If you or someone on the Oracle team  
> wants to demonstrate an implementation of your proposal, or even  
> better, contribute that code to the WebKit or Mozilla codebase, that  
> would be a compelling way of demonstrating relative merits...  
> cutting-edge authors could experiment with both and provide feedback  
> about what aspects of each they prefer.  That would be an effective  
> argument in favor of one or the other.

You bet.

>
> I will say that Hixie's proposal (which, if I understand it, comes  
> from Apple's implementation) has an advantage, because he has been  
> working within W3C and directly with browser vendors for a while; he  
> knows how to write specifications in the style that implementers  
> prefer, and he also has their respect on technical matters.  You  
> would do well to specify your proposal in a manner similar to his,  
> with similar detail, and to cultivate credibility and relationships  
> with browser vendors if you want to gain preference for your  
> proposal.  I'm sorry this is not the most encouraging statement, but  
> I believe it is factual, and it is intended as helpful advice.
>

No worries.