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

Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for: Server-sent Events, Web {Database, Sockets, Storage Workers}; deadline 19 November

From: Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:16:58 -0800
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F40286A9-6E4B-4A0A-AE64-EFDCCC395F34@oracle.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Nov 24, 2009, at 7:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> Based on the responses for this call for comments, I see the next  
>> steps as:
>> 1. Server-sent Events, Web Storage and Web Workers - ready for LCWD
>> publication. Later today I will begin a CfC to publish LCWD of these
>> three specs
>> 2. Web Sockets API - the group should discuss Adrian's comments:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0842.html
>> 3. Web Database - there is sufficient interest to keep this spec on  
>> the
>> Recommendation track. However, there is an open question about who  
>> will
>> commit to drive this spec, in particular who will commit to being its
>> Editor. Hixie - would you please explain your intent/position here?
> My intent with the Web SQL Database spec (or whatever I end up calling
> it) is to continue to drive it to REC, but without defining the SQL
> dialect in any more detail than the draft does now (as edited after  
> the
> F2F).

This suggests that we are unlikely to make any progress on the draft  
past this point.

> I would not consider multiple implementations all using the same SQL
> backend to be fully independent for the purposes of getting two
> interoperable implementations for the purpose of exiting CR, and  
> thus I do
> not expect this spec to ever get past that stage.

I don't see any logic in this that would benefit this WG.

> <snip>

Received on Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:20:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:21 UTC