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

Re: CfC: to publish LCWD of: Server-Events, Web {SQL Database, Sockets, Storage, Worker}; deadline 15 December

From: Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:26:58 -0800
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E0CC02EE-F425-4542-8381-5F26ACC973F2@oracle.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Hi Art,

This is Oracle's official position on Web SQL Database: Oracle does  
not believe that Web SQL Database is ready for Last Call.

Oracle believes that:

1. It is not good for the industry to start a new SQL language  
standard track. A better approach would be to define a profile based  
on the existing SQL language standard, ISO/IEC 9075, that meets the  
needs of Web applications.  We should not ignore the many years of  
work by that committee and the database community, and should instead  
build on it.

2. The draft being proposed for Last Call, defines the SQL language by  
referring to a particular version of the SQLite implementation.  Such  
a definition is not a valid standard as it does not allow for  
alternative implementations. To turn this into a valid specification  
we need to include a normative textual specification of the language  
accepted by SQLite. We can start with the SQLite SQL language manual (http://www.sqlite.org/lang.html 
), but again, just referring to this URL is not acceptable as a  
normative specification.

3. Assuming that the editor decides to specify the SQL language by  
including its normative textual specification, the WG needs time to  
review this substantial amount of new material before sending this  
proposal out to the larger community.

I want to remind the members that silence today means assent for Last  
Call, which means they agree that: (1) A new SQL language standards  
track is good, (2) Defining a bag of implementation bits as a standard  
is good. Even if you personally have lost interest in this  
specification and can't be bothered to respond, remember that we in  
the WG have a collective responsibility to do no harm.

Nikunj

P. S. Consider this paragraph from the SQLite manual (http://www.sqlite.org/lang_droptable.html 
):
>
> The DROP TABLE statement does not reduce the size of the database  
> file in the default mode. Empty space in the database is retained  
> for later INSERT statements. To remove free space in the database,  
> use the VACUUM statement. If auto_vacuum mode is enabled for a  
> database then space will be freed automatically by DROP TABLE.
This is a perfectly fine behavior and a perfectly fine paragraph in a  
manual.  However this is not the kind of language you expect to see in  
a standard where a wider range of behaviors is desired.

On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working  
> Draft of the following specs:
>
> 1. Server-Sent Events
>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
>
> 2. Web SQL Database
>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
>
> 3. Web Sockets API
>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
>
> 4. Web Storage
>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
>
> 5. Web Workers
>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/
>
> This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's  
> decision to request advancement" to LCWD. Note that as specified in  
> the Process Document [PD], a Working Group's Last Call announcement  
> is a signal that:
>
> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant  
> technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements  
> document) in the Working Draft;
>
> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant  
> dependencies with other groups;
>
> * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these  
> dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call  
> announcement is also a signal that the Working Group is planning to  
> advance the technical report to later maturity levels.
>
> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and  
> encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline  
> for comments is 14 December.
>
> The comment period length will be 6 months (ending ~17 June 2010 if  
> the LCWD is published ~ 17 December 2009) unless someone commits (by  
> 15 December) to completing the review earlier including actively  
> editing the spec, responding to comments, etc.
>
> -Regards, Art Barstow
>
> [PD] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
>
>
>

Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
Received on Saturday, 12 December 2009 02:28:50 GMT

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