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

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

From: Keean Schupke <keean.schupke@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 22:25:41 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTikAee0J6ssQsygR6HMYaeGguwuMiyAC=RhE8xOc@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Benjamin Poulain <benjamin.poulain@nokia.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, ext Nathan Kitchen <w3c@nathankitchen.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
What if we have a formal definition for the API that is independent of any
implementation?

Cheers
Keean
On Apr 1, 2011 5:57 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> 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?
>
> The standard reason for not depending on a reference implementation
> still apply - if you depend on a reference implementation, then you
> implicitly depend on its bugs as well.
>
> This isn't a huge problem for individual projects, which can work
> around the bugs on their own, and more importantly, fix their code if
> they update to a new version without those bugs. As you know, the web
> doesn't work like that. If we all exposed the same implementation of
> sqlite, the body of code on the web would grow to meet and depend on
> all the bugs in that implementation. Any bugfixes would have an
> associated compatibility cost, which is much larger than normal
> because all browsers agreed on the bug.
>
> We try to require two independent implementations for the same reason
> you're not allowed to have children with your siblings - multiple
> implementations with the same bugs are much worse than multiple
> implementations with different sets of bugs, even if the total
> quantity of bugs is higher in the latter situation.
>
> ~TJ
>
> (I didn't realize I was heading toward an incest analogy when I
> started this reply. I stand by my decision.)
>
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 16:57:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:44 GMT