- From: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:17:21 -0700
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Art, Oracle conditionally supports the publishing this draft as FPWD provided that the abstract is worded appropriately. The reason to clarify the abstract is so that the WG doesn't build an implicit expectation that it will /only/ produce a SQL-based API in Web Storage. Here's what Oracle would like to see in the abstract: This specification defines two APIs for persistent data storage in Web clients: one for accessing key-value pair data and another for accessing structured data. Some developers around the world have assumed, without justification, that SQL is /the/ model of data access that will be supported inside the browser, e.g., Maciej expressing an expectation about SQLite [1]. This is because of the history of this draft and I hope we can do something to temper that expectation at an early enough stage. Nikunj [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0133.html On Apr 10, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > Hi Nikunj, > > On Apr 10, 2009, at 10:42 AM, ext Nikunj Mehta wrote: > >> Oracle does not support the substance of the current Web Storage >> draft >> [1][2][3]. This is a path-breaking change to the Web applications >> platform and rushing such a major change without substantive >> consideration of alternatives is not in its own best interest. Oracle >> does not see it fit to advance the current draft along the >> recommendation track >> >> Still, we believe that the working group will benefit greatly from >> the >> wide review of this draft. Has the chair exhausted all such >> alternatives such as Working Group Note? At the very least the status >> needs to be clear about the purpose of publishing the document. A >> boilerplate status is not appropriate since there are important >> concerns about the technique used for structured storage in the >> draft. > > I agree it would be good to get broad review of the proposed FPWD > and the formal publication will trigger a related note on both > w3.org and the weekly Public newsletter. > > Please note there is certainly a precedence for a WG to not have > unanimous agreement regarding the entire "substance" of a FPWD. > > Regarding a WG Note, that doesn't seem appropriate in this case > since the WG's plan of record (Charter) is to create a > Recommendation for this spec. > > -Regards, Art Barstow > > >> >> Nikunj Mehta >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0131.html >> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0136.html >> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0137.html >> >> On Apr 2, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: >> >>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish the First Public >>> Working Draft of the specs below. >>> >>> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and >>> encouraged and silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline >>> for comments is April 10. >>> >>> -Regards, Art Barstow >>> >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> From: ext Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> >>>> Date: April 1, 2009 6:22:40 PM EDT >>>> To: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org> >>>> Subject: Request for FPWD publication of Server-Sent Events, Web >>>> Sockets API, Web Storage, and Web Workers >>>> Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.62.0904012208150.25058@hixie.dreamhostps.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The following drafts are relatively stable and would benefit >>>> greatly from >>>> wider review: >>>> >>>> Server-Sent Events >>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ >>>> >>>> The Web Sockets API >>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ >>>> >>>> Web Storage >>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ >>>> >>>> Web Workers >>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ >>>> >>>> Assuming there is consensus in the working group to do so, could we >>>> publish these as First Public Working Drafts? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> -- >>>> Ian Hickson U+1047E ) >>>> \._.,--....,'``. fL >>>> http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _ >>>> \ ;`._ ,. >>>> Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'-- >>>> (,_..'`-.;.' >>>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Friday, 10 April 2009 19:19:15 UTC