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

RE: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September

From: Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti <Laxmi.Oruganti@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 01:31:03 +0800
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
CC: Pablo Castro <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <C84F9222BE3A34439A7F58655086DFD70CD9896E16@AA-EXMSG-C426.southpacific.corp.microsoft.com>
Hey WebApps Group, 

	I am happy to see people scared (much like me :)).  If CFC is just for public *working* draft, then I think I was unnecessarily worried and thanks Robin for helping me 	out here.

	I am fine this going for public working draft and hence get reach more people/community for review.

Hey Robin, 

	LINQ is a hard one to push as LINQ again ties back to Microsoft only (single vendor).  As a Microsoft employee I am super excited about LINQ, but as standards 	advocate LINQ is not the right one.  Unless Microsoft puts some effort in standardizing the LINQ and promotes few other vendors go for it (much like ODBC), I would not 	vouch for it in web standards.  On the other hand, I have heard of efforts in having LINQ like stuff in Java.

	On the positive front, I am glad to work with people to find an alternative here that is widely acceptable.  I will come back on that later.

Thanks,
Laxmi

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 6:34 PM
To: Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti
Cc: public-webapps; Pablo Castro
Subject: Re: CfC: to publish the First Public Working Draft of Web Database spec; deadline 7 September

Hi Laxmi,

just to make sure that we are clear on what you are objecting to: the  
CfC is for a Working Draft (what's more, the first) to be published.  
This by no means entails ratification by W3C, it simply reflects where  
the group is on that topic.

This is not to say that you shouldn't object, I am just indicating  
that you can dislike this specification and still agree that it can be  
published because it'll grant it wider review than what it has today  
(and perhaps spur someone into proposing something better before this  
ships). I personally agree with your objections, but I'm okay with  
this draft being published because I'd really like browsers to have an  
advanced form of storage, and since I think SQL is the wrong option  
for this I'm hoping it'll scare someone into offering a better  
alternative.

I am curious: given that you care about the right option being  
selected here, have you considered proposing LINQ as an option for the  
WG to work on (or a subset thereof)? Having a positive proposal can go  
a long way in terms of shaping a specification.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 17:31:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT