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: Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:39:54 -0700
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <79F9505F-6646-4B58-8C1D-CF957C0A0FC2@oracle.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Although formally, this is an FPWD, in reality this is the third FPWD  
for this content already. While implementable, Oracle is concerned  
about two aspects of this draft that have never changed materially  
since the original publication of the said content in HTML5 WDs:

1. Complex programming model that will make usage prone to making more  
mistakes than usual for database programming
2. Inadequate effort by the editor to ascertain the suitability of  
this spec to be implemented independently by multiple parties

We agree with Jonas and Laxmi that this is neither a great direction  
to pursue nor is FPWD itself going to bring about much progress.  
Nevertheless, we, too, support publication of the WebDatabase draft as  

We are also very pleased to announce that following up on our previous  
strawman proposal [1], we have drafted a new Database API [2] that  
does not rely on SQL or SQLite. It is still in a relatively early  
state and will undergo some more changes before we pursue wider  

However, we welcome any and all feedback on our draft proposal.

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/F480F60A-5DAE-4B73-922A-93ED401CF32C@oracle.com
[2] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebSimpleDatabase/

On Sep 1, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> I support a FPWD since I'm all for drafts of any kind being published.
> However, I'm still unconvinced that this draft is heading the right
> way for the web. My concern is two-fold:
> 1. It doesn't define enough to allow multiple interoperable
> implementations. This is because the SQL dialect is not defined.
> 2. SQL doesn't seem very web-friendly. For example the ability to
> store serializable JS objects and index on a property of that JS
> object seems hard to fit with SQL.
> The problem is even greater when the two are combined. Once the SQL
> dialect is defined, it's quite possible that UAs won't be able to use
> a SQL library like sqlite, but instead have to more or less build
> their own SQL implementation. This makes the cost extremely high, and
> the result not something that even that closely matches what
> developers want.
> / Jonas
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Arthur  
> Barstow<art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public  
>> Working Draft
>> (FPWD) of the Web Database spec:
>>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
>> Note that at one point in time, the Web Database spec's  
>> functionality was
>> included in the Web Storage spec.
>> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and  
>> encouraged and
>> silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is  
>> September
>> 7.
>> -Regards, Art Barstow

Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 20:42:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:18 UTC