Re: Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Michael Fitchett
<michael.fitchett@spotsync.com> wrote:
> Dear Members of the W3C Consortium::
>
> Regarding:  Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active
>
> I would like to request  that you make the W3C Web SQL Database
> specification active again. The Web SQL Database Specification enables
> developers to build web-based applications that can store, retrieve,
> manipulate and query against data on the client machine. This technology is
> similar to SQLite, Microsoft SQL Server, MySQL, etc. Web SQL combined with
> Manifest enable developers to build web-based applications that work while
> offline.
>
> The Web SQL Database specification was on the W3C Recommendation track, but
> the specification was stopped because Mozilla and Microsoft did not want to
> implement a specification that lacked proper SQL definition. I know there is
> a need for both a NoSQL and SQL solution. The two specifications (Web SQL
> Database and Indexed Database API) that exist to date are acceptable..
> However, as stated above, the problem is the lack of definition for SQL.
> Since lack of definition is the issue, I would like to recommend a remedy.
> I know SQL experts and great documentation writers who I would gladly hire
> to further define the Web SQL Database specification and fill in the missing
> SQL definition. Is this something that would be possible to help revive the
> specification and get the remaining vendors on board?

The minimum requirements for bringing back WebSQL, or any other
SQL-based web spec is IMHO:

1. A specification for the SQL dialect being proposed.
2. *Two* independent, production quality, database implementations
being willing to implement exactly that SQL dialect. Not a subset of
it, and not a superset of it.
3. The two independent implementations need to have roughly the same
performance characteristics. I.e. it's not ok for an implementation to
generate correct results, but do it so slowly that it's in practice
unusable.

Unfortunately these are minimum requirements. I couldn't promise that
even if we had that that WebSQL would get revived. So that means that
we're at a bit of a catch-22. Even investigating if the above is
feasible would be a lot of work, so it's unclear if anyone is willing
to do that work when there is guaranteed reward.

/ Jonas

Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 21:24:20 UTC