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: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:50:42 -0500
Message-Id: <EC8EDBA6-C34B-4262-B83A-C51F59876BF2@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
To: robert@ocallahan.org, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, ext Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Nov 9, 2009, at 8:29 AM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:44:09 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
> wrote:
>> At the Web Apps WG face-to-face meeting at TPAC, all parties  
>> agreed (in
>> the room at least) to let the spec continue without fully  
>> specifying the
>> SQL dialect.
> This is not at all the sense that I got. Hixie agreed to specify  
> something
> that he could copy-and-paste, since he doesn't see the value in  
> working
> hard on agreeing to a dialect where two major players aren't  
> interested,
> and others are sufficiently unimpressed by the SQL approach that  
> they plan
> to follow the WebSimpleDB approach.
>> The reason is that all parties who currently have or are in the  
>> process
>> of developing implementations did not appear to need it, and the  
>> parties
>> that would be blocked (Mozilla, Microsoft) said their decision  
>> would not
>> be swayed by having a spec, and would not implement regardless.  
>> Thus, it
>> did not seem there would be a practical benefit to specifying the SQL
>> dialect. Thus, those present said they were satisfied to specify that
>> SQLite v3 is the dialect.
> In other words, there is a specified dialogue - but not enough  
> apparent
> energy to try and go further.
> My sense is that this much agreement was considered important to  
> justify
> keeping the spec in the WG.

As an FYI on the dialect, Hixie updated the Editor's Draft to include  
the following (note the date on the top of the ED says Oct 29 but  
Hixie actually updated it on 3 November):


User agents must implement the SQL dialect supported by Sqlite 3.6.19.

>> Note: I would try to find Apple resources to help write a SQL dialect
>> spec if anyone says it will materially help them to have such a spec
>> (and the level of interest doesn't reach the threshold where Hixie  
>> wants
>> to write it himself). I don't think I could get resources if it's  
>> just a
>> busywork exercise.
> Opera would be interested in you doing that (or Hixie, but it seems  
> he is
> not) so we could keep building interoperable implementations, if  
> you're
> not happy with SQLite v3.

Given the feedback on implementations [1], I think the next  
publication of Web Database should be a WD rather than a WG Note.

By publishing a WG Note, the group would say it will no longer do any  
work on the Web Database spec. Such a position seems a bit short- 
sighted at the moment, given the relative immaturity of WebSimpleDB  
API and the issues raised about it last week [2].

If/when the Web Database spec meets LC criteria (e.g. see [3]), I  
support it being published as a LCWD provided the Editor and WG agree  
to process any comments submitted.

-Regards, Art Barstow

[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-webapps-minutes.html#item11
[2] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-webapps-minutes.html#item14
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/ 
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 17:51:54 UTC

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