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 10:12:54 -0700
Message-ID: <4D960796.8050405@mozilla.com>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Benjamin Poulain <benjamin.poulain@nokia.com>, ext Nathan Kitchen <w3c@nathankitchen.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On 4/1/2011 9:39 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> IE6 is closed-source software written for a single platform.  SQLite
> is in the public domain, works for all major operating systems and
> lots of minor ones, and is already used (I think?) by every major
> browser except IE.  That makes all the difference.  There's some
> benefit to having multiple interoperable implementations even if the
> reference implementation is public-domain, but enormously less than
> when the only implementations are controlled by particular parties.
How, exactly, does it make all the difference?  I sure hope you aren't 
suggesting that the spec say "do what this code does."

> So if the only objection to WebSQL is "there's no way we're going to
> get a formal spec or two interoperable implementations", I'd really
> encourage objectors to step back and ask themselves why they *want* a
> formal spec and two interoperable implementations.  Those requirements
> are not axiomatic, they're means to obtain practical ends like
> allowing competitions and avoiding user lock-in.  How many of those
> ends are really contrary to using SQLite as a de facto standard, and
> do the remaining ones really outweigh the practical advantages?
That's not the only reason.  Mozilla laid out others ten months ago:



Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 17:13:32 UTC

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