W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Web Storage Scope and Charter (was: CfC: FPWD of Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets API, Web Storage, and Web Workers; deadline April 10)

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:34:30 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0904231434u7cd398d2o5ee0a4e0582ef7da@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Sounds good to me.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi, Folks-
> I discussed this a bit with Nikunj offline, in the context of the charter
> wording.  He and I both agreed that the scope of the charter was too narrow
> (that was my fault; I changed the wording to reflect the abstract of the
> current Web Storage spec, and I probably shouldn't have), but we also agreed
> that the spec itself is higher profile and more important than the wording
> in the charter.
> Jonas and others seem to support broadening the scope, and I've also been
> reading various posts in the blogosphere that also question whether SQL is
> the right choice (I see a lot of support for JSON-based approaches).  At the
> very least, I think this group should discuss this more before committing to
> any one solution.  I note that Ian was already open to an early spec
> revision on the same lines, so I hope this isn't controversial.
> Rather than change the charter (which would require everyone who's already
> rejoined to re-rejoin at the simplest, and might require another AC review
> at the worst), Nikunj offered that he would be satisfied if more generic
> wording were put in the charter, and highlighted as an issue.  I would
> propose something like, "This specification currently contains wording
> specific to a SQL or name-value pair storage solution, but the WebApps WG is
> discussing other structured storage alternatives that may better match the
> use cases and requirements."  I leave it up to Nikunj to provide wording
> that would satisfy him.
> If this is acceptable to the WG as a whole, I would ask that a message
> similar to the above be put in a prominent place in the spec.  This seems
> like the soundest way forward.
> Art, Chaals, care to chime in?  Other comments on this matter?
> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
> Jonas Sicking wrote (on 4/21/09 6:22 PM):
>> Hmm.. I tend to agree. Using an SQL database is only one possible
>> solution that we should be examining. I would rather say that we
>> should provide storage for structured data inside the UA. I'm not a
>> fan of calling out neither SQL or name-value pair storage.
>> At the same time I'm not sure that I care that much about it, as long
>> as we can change the draft later in case the spec takes a different
>> turn than the current drafts.
>> / Jonas
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Nikunj Mehta<nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
>>  wrote:
>>>  Apparently the new charter [1] that forces everyone to re-join the WG
>>> also
>>>  lists among its deliverables as WebStorage with the explanation that
>>>  WebStorage is
>>>  "two APIs for client-side data storage in Web applications: a name-value
>>>  pair system, and a database system with a SQL frontend"
>>>  Clearly, if the WD of WebStorage has in its abstract something more
>>> general,
>>>  the charter should not be so specific.
>>>  I now understand that this new piece of text made its way into the
>>> charter
>>>  recently. The last message I can see about charter change for WebApps
>>> [1]
>>>  only talks about adding WebWorkers. Apparently other changes were also
>>> made,
>>>  but no diff provided to members about the charter change proposal.
>>>  Can you throw some light on this?
>>>  Nikunj
>>>  [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/04/webapps-charter
>>>  [2]
>>> http://www.w3.org/mid/3E428EC7-1960-4ECE-B403-827BA47FE1EB@nokia.comIan
>>>  Hickson wrote:
>>>  On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote:
>>>  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.
>>>  Done.
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2009 21:35:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:53 UTC