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: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:42:52 -0500
Message-ID: <5dd9e5c50911252042u6989a272p4b7fb8035e9f9fd3@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>wrote:

>
> 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.
>

I think the logic behind the decision is already clear in this thread.  I
don't see why you're being so adamant about this when you're affected very
little by the decision either way (except that your proposal has less
"competition" I suppose).
Received on Thursday, 26 November 2009 05:14:23 GMT

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