W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: What do we mean by "parking" Web Database? [Was: Re: TPAC report day 2]

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:49:58 +0100
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8879EF43-44DD-48A3-9A8D-6AE2BA3B72CA@berjon.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On Nov 9, 2009, at 09:58 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> Indeed. I still personally wouldn't call it multiple independent
>> implementations though.
>
> Would you call multiple implementations that use the standard C  
> library independent? Obviously there's a judgment call to be made  
> here. I realize that in this case a database implementation is a  
> pretty key piece of the problem.

At the very least I would expect the CR-exit criteria to require two  
interoperable implementations of the specification made using  
different SQL back-ends. Otherwise this would be like implementing  
something in Gecko and counting Firefox, XulRunner, Seamonkey, etc. as  
independent implementations.

> But I also think it would be more fruitful for you to promote  
> solutions you do like, than to try to find lawyerly reasons to stop  
> the advancement of specs you don't (when the later have been  
> implemented and shipped and likely will see more implementations).

I personally am not trying to be lawyery about this, but I think it's  
only fair to request that this specification be done at the level we  
expect from others. I therefore don't see much of a point in going to  
LC without the SQL dialect being specified  it's not a finished spec.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 11:50:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT