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: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:56:55 -0800
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: <4AB16A34-AF24-42B0-BDB5-47CC35EBFDD0@apple.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>

On Nov 9, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:

> 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.

I agree that your Gecko example would be questionable. But to give an  
example on the other side of the fence, WebKit uses a copy of  
Mozilla's image decoding code, and yet I think our implementation of  
the <img> element clearly counts as independent. I would say choice of  
SQL back end falls somewhere between these two examples.

>> 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.

Those present at the Web Apps WG face-to-face session on this topic  
generally agreed otherwise. Not to say that no one can disagree, but  
it seemed that most could live with a spec for only the API layers. I  
did not insist on a query language spec, because just advancing the  
API spec seemed like the most practical way to move forward at the time.

Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 11:57:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:20 UTC