W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

From: Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:08:05 -0700
Message-ID: <4D960675.5050201@mozilla.com>
To: Nathan Kitchen <w3c@nathankitchen.com>
CC: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On 4/1/2011 5:40 AM, Nathan Kitchen wrote:
> Are there any browser vendor representatives on the mailing list who would
> care to comment on the criteria for implementing something akin to Keean's
> RelationalDB<https://github.com/keean/RelationalDB>  idea? What would need
> to be in place to start work on such an implementation?
It wouldn't be terribly difficult to prototype this as an add-on for 
Firefox, I don't think (and I'd be happy to provide technical assistance 
to anyone wishing to do so).  Doing this would allow web developers to 
install the add-on and play with it, which can give us useful feedback.

I'm not saying we'd move it into the tree at that point, but it's a good 
first step to building a case to take it.

>     1. Opportunity to explore more solutions to "offline data" than *just *
>     IndexedDB.
There is also http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/offline.html and 
http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ (even if you don't like them, they 
are other solutions to the offline problem).  Browser vendors are not 
just looking at IndexedDB.

>     2. Many web developers have a working knowledge of SQL, so the concepts
>     of a relational database may be more familiar. If adoption could be
>     considered a proxy for the "success" of a standard, I'd suggest that aiming
>     for something the web development community understands would be a large
>     factor in adoption.
I don't really think IndexedDB is that dissimilar to a relational 
database.  There are a lot of one-to-one mappings of concepts of one to 
the other.

>     3. It's probably (!) easier to implement RelationalDB than IndexedDB, as
>     it maps fairly cleanly to existing relational database technologies. This
>     would allow vendors to implement it using Sqlite, Access, etc independent of
>     the spec.
Given that most vendors already have working implementations of 
IndexedDB, I don't think this is a good argument ;)



Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 17:09:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:31 UTC