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

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:18:40 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0907161318j2508a340l5b684981849897e1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
For what it's worth I don't think using the word "Web" in the name
makes the connection that this is *the* *only* specification for
storage for the web. I'll also point out that specs can be renamed at
any point in the future if it turns out that the name is confusing.

I also think the name of the spec is largely irrelevant.

That said, I don't think a name like "SQLDatabase" is a very good name
since there are lots of SQL database specifications and
implementations. Something like WebSQLDatabase would be better. IMHO.
But like I said, I think it's largely irrelevant.

/ Jonas

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta<nikunj.mehta@oracle.com> wrote:
> 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 20:19:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:17 UTC