W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

WebDatabase/WebStorage (was Re: Points of order on this WG)

From: Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:34:38 -0700
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D34DA34B-3ED7-4D65-9ECB-C9A7BFF3110F@oracle.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
I would like to suggest that these specs be renamed to better reflect  
what they are about.

For one, using the term Web in the title draws attention as the one  
(or the primary one). Secondly, it says nothing about the constructs  
offered. For example, WebDatabase suggests that this is *the* spec for  
structured storage, when, in fact, this group has argued in favor of  
multiple approaches, including one on B-tree databases that I have  
proposed.

My suggestion is to rename the WebDatabase spec as the SQLDatabase  
spec. That way any other approach can be called the XXXDatabase spec.

Similarly, with WebStorage, it is not clear what is the meaning of  
"Web" in the title, especially since we are currently left with just  
key-value storage. Since Web does nothing, except to distract and  
possibly mislead people into thinking that the spec covers all  
possible storage needs, I would suggest that the editor drop the word  
Web from the spec title. I also have a suggestion for the title - Key  
Value Storage. I do realize that this might be moot given that  
WebStorage has already gone through FPWD. Still, it does us no harm to  
at least rectify the situation now rather than going to CR with this  
name.

Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com



On Jul 15, 2009, at 3:56 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> [...] (if anything, I think we should split Web Storage into two
>>> further specs [...]
>>
>> [...] 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.
>
> Done.
>
>   http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
>   http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
>
> I'll probably not ask for Web Database to go to last call in October
> (unlike the rest of the specs I'm working on), so that we can add  
> the SQL
> definition before last call (which I plan to do either Q4 this year or
> early next year).
>
> -- 
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                ) 
> \._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _ 
> \  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'-- 
> (,_..'`-.;.'
>
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2009 16:36:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:32 GMT