- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:40:32 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Ian Hickson wrote: >>> ... If I mentioned an editor for the SQL-related parts I was probably >>> talking about an editor for the SQL language subset that the database >>> section will eventually need to require for interoperability, as >>> opposed to the database and storage section (which as noted, is mostly >>> done already). ... >> So these would be in different documents? Me confused. > > I expect when there are fewer more pressing matters (like the thousands of > outstabding e-mails of feedback) that we can split out the storage section > into its own document much like the workers section, and the "Web SQL" > definition can live there. Or it could be is own spec. I don't really > mind. It's mostly academic at this point. Hu? My impression was that we have a volunteer -- Nikunj -- and you just turned down his offer. How is that academic? >> That sounds backwards to me. How is the second implementation supposed >> to come into existence then? Why not specify, implements, test, and >> re-iterate that process? > > Sure, if someone wants to volunteer and wants to do it that way instead, > then that's fine by me too. So long as the implementors are on board and > we end up with interoperable implementations, I don't really care how it's > done. Aha. We have a volunteer, as far as I understand, and judging from his email address, a likely competent one. Why would implementors be not on board, if their feedback is treated as it should? Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 22:41:13 UTC