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

RE: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:08:37 +0000
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
CC: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <104E6B5B6535E849970CDFBB1C5216EB1CF22422@TK5EX14MBXC136.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Friday, November 20, 2009 4:44 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:23:38 +0100, Adrian Bateman
> <adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> > ...As I noted at TPAC, at Microsoft we don't think we'll collectively
> > be able to achieve reasonable interop because of the SQL dialect issue
> ...
> > it seems unlikely that there will be two independent interoperable
> > implementations at the SQL level which makes moving to Last Call
> > potentially problematic...
> 
> I expect to see interoperable implementations from Opera and Apple/Chrome
> - so although you can argue that iPhone-Safari and Safari are hardly
> independent, I think we will easily get a couple of truly independent
> interoperable versions.

I was under the impression that Opera were using the same SQLite library as Apple/Google to provide the SQL implementation (obviously the JavaScript part Web Database API implementation would be independent). If that is not the case then I agree that they are independent however using the same library is a single implementation of the SQL dialect part of the spec.

> > I do wonder whether it might make sense to include an editor's note in
> > the WD indicating that independent implementations of the SQL dialect
> > aren't currently anticipated just so that anyone unfamiliar with this
> > conversation would be aware from the spec.
> 
> I think the spec should be more careful, stating something like "we do
> not currently anticipate that browsers will all implement the spec", and
> pointing to the WebSimpleDB as a *more likely* implementation based on
> current knowledge.

That seems reasonable.

Cheers,

Adrian

Received on Friday, 20 November 2009 15:10:16 GMT

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