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

Re: Points of order on this WG

From: Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:51:54 -0700
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jeff Mischkinsky <JEFF.MISCHKINSKY@oracle.com>
Message-Id: <22C8CBA9-97A5-4330-87D5-FE3A1AE8CF8A@oracle.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
On Jun 26, 2009, at 12:56 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:

> 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?

I would be pleased to edit an alternate spec for structured storage.  
After the charter snafu earlier in April, we discussed the need for  
WG's charter to state a desire to standardize structured storage (as  
opposed to limiting to SQL storage). Still it would be good if the  
charter clarifies this.

Secondly, Oracle proposes adding request interception and programmable  
http cache to the WG's charter. Oracle will provide resources for  
editing and reviewing proposals for all three deliverables.

That being said, I am really glad that the WG was able to arrive at a  
swift and positive conclusion on this matter. I want to take a moment  
and appreciate the help of all those who weighed in on Oracle's  
concerns and look forward to working together and constructively to  
remove the concerns.

Best regards,
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 17:54:07 GMT

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