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

Re: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:58:52 -0800
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-id: <E306F3B1-1E5E-49D5-9191-9E9474C1737C@apple.com>
To: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>

On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:26 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:

> On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>> I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1] and  
>>> I've come to two conclusions.  (1) We are miles away from  
>>> consensus on this specification, and, hence, we should _not_  
>>> consider putting it out for last call.  (2)  While good work has  
>>> gone into the IDL/JavaScript Call Level Interface (CLI), we have  
>>> made no progress on its SQL language specification and are not  
>>> likely to in the future. Thus we should publish the CLI as a WG  
>>> Note titled "WebSQLDatabase CLI" and curtail active work on this  
>>> specification in the working group. This is Oracle's official  
>>> position on this matter.
>> I disagree.
> I don't understand your reasons.

I already sated some reasons in the previous thread about 'parking'  
the spec. I did not want to belabor the point, since it's clear we  
don't have consensus within the Working Group on the right way to go.

>> Publishing a WG Note would be appropriate if we had WG consensus to  
>> stop work.
> Understood
>> I don't think we have consensus to do that.
> This is what I am trying to bring about. See the reasoning in my  
> original email. It would help if you can respond to the three points  
> why I think we have reached the end of the road.

I think that the three possibilities you listed are:

- Not an exhaustive enumeration of the possibilities. (I realize that  
at this point, to convincingly show that a good SQL dialect spec is  
possible will require actually doing it; I'm not sure how or when that  
will happen but I am looking into it.)
- Not sufficient reason to stop work, given that we have multiple  
willing implementors and so far no problems in practice.

Furthermore, stopping work would do practical harm:

- A WG Note would stop work without producing a test suite, thus  
harming interoperability.
- A WG Note would leave us with no clear process to fix problems found  
in the spec in the course of implementation.
- A WG Note is harder to "resurrect" in case of new info than a  
stalled Working Draft; it would require essentially a new FPWD.
- It's likely that Web Database implementors will at some point want  
to add features, and a WG Note does not provide a suitable path for  
doing that.

And on the flip side, keeping the spec at Working Draft maturity will  
not harm anyone who is not interested in it.

In brief, I do not find your arguments persuasive. I think there are  
reasons to continue working. I don't expect my reasons to be  
persuasive to everyone; clearly something will have to change for the  
Working Group to have consensus on the best path forward.

Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 06:59:26 UTC

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