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

Re: Points of order on this WG

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:56:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4A447F1A.4070301@w3.org>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Jeff Mischkinsky <JEFF.MISCHKINSKY@oracle.com>
Hi, Folks-

Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 6/25/09 7:20 PM):
>
> On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>> I think Nikunj's proposal definitely is worthy of being persued, just
>> like
>> the working group is persuing dozens of other proposals like XHR, CORS,
>> Selectors API, Workers, Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets, etc. I don't
>> believe it really fits into the Web Storage spec (if anything, I think we
>> should split Web Storage into two further specs, not add a third wholly
>> independent feature to it). However, I would definitely support an FPWD
>> publication of Nikunj's proposal, as I have for other proposals.
>
> I strongly agree on these points. I would prefer to see SQL Storage
> split out of the rest of Web Storage. We seem to have rough consensus
> and strong multilateral implementor interest on LocalStorage and
> SessionStorage, and they should be allowed to move forward on the
> standards track quickly. SQL Storage remains contentious, and only Apple
> and Google have shown strong implementor interest so far. And it has no
> technical tie to the other storage drafts. I also think Nikunj's
> proposal should be yet a third separate orthogonal draft.

Art, Chaals, Mike, and I discussed this yesterday, and we agreed that 
this seems like the best solution.  Like the Widgets work, a deliverable 
doesn't necessarily have to be in a single spec, so we believe there is 
sufficient justification for this in the charter.

The plan of record would be to split out the SQL Storage section into 
its own spec, with an alternate spec edited by Nikunj, and to publish an 
updated draft of Web Storage that points to both those other drafts. 
This way, all parts of the web storage deliverable are put on a level 
playing field to be judged on their individual merits, and subject to 
being edited and updated individually.

Nikunj, would this suit you?  Does anyone else have any thoughts?

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 07:56:20 GMT

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